Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Shipping Safety (Donaldson Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. James Wallace: First, I express my gratitude to you, Madam Speaker, for the granting of an Adjournment debate on the important subject of the Government's response to Lord Donaldson's inquiry and his detailed report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
My gratitude is tinged with some disappointment, because the debate is being held in private Members' time. On the day of the publication of Lord Donaldson's report, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) challenged the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on when it would be possible to have a debate on it. He replied:
I should be happy to have a debate when everyone has had a chance to digest the voluminous report"—[Official Report, 17 May 1994; Vol.243, c.686.]
That was 13 months ago, and today is the first opportunity that the House has had to debate that report. It is regrettable that the debate is not being held in Government time, but I hope that it will whet the appetite and persuade business managers that there is a need for a lengthy and more in-depth study of the important issues involved.
I shall briefly run through the background to the publication of Lord Donaldson's report. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that, on 5 January 1993, the oil tanker Braer went aground in the south part of Shetland in my constituency. With commendable promptness, the Secretary of State for Transport announced, when the House first met on 11 January 1993, after the Christmas-New Year recess, that an inquiry would to be set up under Lord Donaldson's chairmanship.
That inquiry worked diligently. It took a considerable amount of evidence, and received volumes of it, which it then distilled to produce its report. At the time of its publication, it was widely acclaimed by industry and environmental groups, because it was considered to have done a thorough job on an important issue. It was also seen as a long overdue investigation into shipping safety. Although everyone had reservations about certain recommendations or were disappointed that other recommendations were not included, it is fair to say that the report found widespread acceptance.
The Government published their response to that report on 28 February this year, in a ministerial statement coupled with a detailed, blow-by-blow account of their response to the 103 recommendations that Lord Donaldson and the assessors who sat with him put forward.
Although the report was occasioned by the grounding of the Braer, it considered wider issues to do with shipping safety. It is important that we deal with those general issues, although I hope that the House will understand that, when I deal with some of the specifics, I will consider points of particular concern to my constituents in Shetland and Orkney.
I shall, however, try to avoid offering a checklist of recommendations and responses, as that would be somewhat tedious. In fact, it would be impossible to do that, because the more I discovered in preparing for the debate, the more obvious it was how one could go on indefinitely raising issues connected with the report.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that a safer maritime regime has important consequences for the environment. The debate will provide us with an opportunity to consider our continuing concerns, and also to see how the Government are measuring up to the stated goals and aspirations set out in their response to the Donaldson report.
Let me turn to the Government's response, published in February 1995. I shall dwell at length on the importance of a timetable for implementation. I am sure that, when the Minister replies, he will tell the House that the Government's response accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations made by Lord Donaldson. The Government have 13 others under active consideration, so, by quick arithmetical process, one discovers that they rejected only four. By any yardstick, that is not a bad record.
However, we wish to examine the Government's record, not on their principled acceptance of many of the recommendations, but on the extent to which those have been implemented.
If one goes through the recommendations and the Government responses, one finds many references to the need for discussions, the need to submit papers and the need to urge the International Maritime Organisation. It is rarely that a clear commitment is made and something is actually being done.
It starts at the very beginning—a very good place to start—with recommendation 1 on the need to tighten flag state implementation. Everyone would agree that, if that could be done, it would be a key way of improving shipping safety, yet there are numerous countries, signatories to the IMO, whose capacity and willingness to implement rigid safety standards fall far below what one would expect of them.
The recommendation that we find there relating to flag state enforcement recommends the Government to
encourage the improvement of Flag State performance generally by giving IMO's Sub-Committee on Flag State Implementation its full support.
It then recommends many specific issues.
In their response, the Government accept recommendations 1(a) and (b) and say:
The UK has also submitted a paper for consideration at the next meeting of IMO's Flag State Implementation Sub-Committee pushing for action against Flag States with poor records.


That may well be all that they can do, but we want to know what happens to those papers once they have been submitted. What progress is made afterwards? I cite that as an example.
Recommendation 53(b), which is not necessarily one of the key recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report, says:
The UK Government should seek the agreement of the relevant international organisations to co-operative reassessment of the requirements for emergency electrical systems.
That is one of the recommendations that the Government accepted. They said:
It is clearly vital that emergency electrical systems are reliable and the UK will work through IMO to achieve any necessary improvements in design".
What does "working through" mean? What is the time scale for achieving it?
Recommendation 57 says that the Government
should press IMO to ensure that all vessels with a large bunker capacity are subject to the same routeing and reporting requirements and recommendations as laden tankers.
That recommendation is accepted in principle. The Government accept that the pollution threat posed to the environment by bunker fuel is such that we need to protect the environment, and we are told:
The Department of Transport will take forward discussions, both nationally and internationally, involving the shipping industry and environmental groups, in 1995.
There is therefore plenty of commitment to discussion and submission of papers.
Recommendation 89 completes my random series of examples. It says:
The UK Government should seek powers for the Coastguard Agency to establish sea exclusion zones.
The response is:
The Government agrees that COASTGUARD ought to have the power to establish sea exclusion zones in emergency situations
but it
will require legislation and we are … considering how best this might be achieved.
There are a great many good intentions—I am aware of the arguments that the Minister can use to draw attention to the good intentions that exist, so justifying the position—but not much concrete action. We shall be told—as we are regularly told—that action is far more effective when we international agreement is achieved. I accept, as a principle, that that must be right. If we can persuade the whole international community to agree those things, self-evidently the safety regime for shipping worldwide would improve.
However, many of us fear that the International Maritime Organisation sometimes goes at the pace of its most reluctant member. We want a sense of urgency.
I hope that the Government are willing—perhaps the Minister will say so when he replies—to identify occasions when it might be appropriate for the European Union, or the United Kingdom unilaterally, to take action if it feels that the international shipping community is not proceeding with a sense of urgency on matters that are considered important.
An example of what has already been done is the EU directive on the recognition of classification societies. That aspect has been identified by many people as one of

the weaknessness in the current position in classification societies; vessels may have been classified too easily. The EU directive will require far more stringent compliance requirements than those required by the IMO. That is a helpful sign that we are prepared to go beyond the minimum international standards. If we can do that in a European context, it is much more effective than doing it purely nationally.
I hope that the Minister will give some sign of what the Government's opinion is about when it would be appropriate for us to go it alone, or go it in partnership with our fellow EU members.
No doubt I shall also be told that all the current discussion and consultation is perfectly reasonable, and that I and my colleagues would be the first to complain if the Government steamed ahead without consultation. Of course consultation has its place, but I want to inject into the debate—not only this morning's debate on the Floor of the House, but the debate generally—a sense of impatience and the need for urgency. We cannot simply sit and wait.
It is now about two and a half years since the Braer went aground. There are important lessons to be learned, many of which Lord Donaldson identified. It is important that we maintain the pressure to ensure that that issue does not go—I was about to say underground—under water until there is another maritime casualty around our shores.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I should not like to think that the impression was being given that nothing is being done, yet that is the impression that I am starting to gain from the hon. Gentleman's speech. If one considers the business plans of the Marine Safety Agency and HM Coastguard, one sees the pillars for many of the actions that are needed to implement those recommendations. Indeed, as I understand it, work is already going on in certain key aspects.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful for that intervention. I would not wish to give the impression that nothing is being done; some important steps have been taken.
For example, every month we now publish the names of defaulters from the surveys that are done by the Marine Safety Agency at several ports, when it finds ships that do not come up to the mark. That is a helpful, positive development and one hopes that it has some effect. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether there is any evidence yet that it is having an effect as a result of the embarrassment factor—and perhaps some commercial downside effect—of those names being published, together with the flag, country and classification society involved.
I would not wish to give the impression that nothing has been done. If one reads the recommendations, one sees many good intentions. However, we should have published a timetable showing when the Government would want those proposals to be translated into action—when the talking must stop and the action must start.
The Government publish a report annually on the state of the environment, in which they set out the progress that has been made on the targets that they set themselves the previous year. It might be helpful if, annually or, better still, six-monthly, the Government were to set out the progress that has been made in trying to meet some of the objectives and to follow up some of the arguments that were made in their response to the Donaldson report.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the evidence shows that fewer than half the ships that transit the straits of Dover or Scottish waters near his constituency stop at a United Kingdom port? Does that not emphasise the importance of international action, which he appears to denigrate as only a talking shop?

Mr. Wallace: I fully accept that argument, and I recognise that there are international constraints. For example, if there are areas to be avoided, that does not interfere with free passage. I have not been among those who have called for the total closure of the Fair Isle straits, in my constituency. If one cannot navigate a vessel through the Fair Isle straits, I am not sure where one can.
There are areas which should be avoided, but that will not stop the free passage of shipping. I would like to see it put on a mandatory rather than a voluntary basis. If that cannot be done internationally, why not do it unilaterally? As to the straits of Dover, there is perhaps more scope for action if we act as a European union rather than as a nation. I pay tribute to the European Union for bringing forward a series of proposals that are designed to improve shipping safety.
I now turn to some of the specifics.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will my hon. Friend extend his analysis of the difference between work that is being undertaken by United Kingdom institutions alone and in conjunction with our European Union partners and the work of international organisations—particularly the International Maritime Organisation—which is much more difficult to see out in the open? It is very easy to see what is being done in the first two contexts, but it is difficult to see what is taking place in international discussions within the IMO, which is an extraordinarily secretive body.
As to my hon. Friend's excellent proposal for a timetable, would it not be appropriate to timetable specifically those recommendations upon which we seek IMO implementation? It would be of enormous benefit to everyone concerned if we could then receive some guidance from the Government about the state of the negotiations.

Mr. Wallace: That is a very helpful suggestion, and it is what I envisaged when I asked for a report which would show what stage certain proposals had reached within the various committees of the IMO. It is important to know the status of the various proposals, and what sort of reception they are receiving from other IMO members. We would then know what was happening, and we would be reassured that proposals were not simply banished to the place on the Albert embankment where they disappear without trace.
After receiving its initial remit, the Donaldson inquiry was asked to examine the question of factory ships. That followed the grounding of the Lunohods and the Borodinskoye Polye in Lerwick harbour in November 1993. They were klondykers engaged in the transshipment of pelagic fish. Lord Donaldson made a series of recommendations calling for action, including legislation, to amend the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.
Paragraph 17.33 of Lord Donaldson's report states:
We believe that a revised system must be in place before the winter of 1994–95 … The Fisheries Departments should declare straight away that from a specified date, well before next winter"—

that is the winter just past—
they will not consider any application for a transshipment licence unless the Master concerned produces evidence that his vessel is adequately insured and reaches minimum safety standards".
A positive move has been the introduction of regular vessel inspections. Vessels are detained—some have been detained in my constituency—when they do not meet certain safety standards. Another klondyker, the Pionersk, ran aground at the end of October last year.
The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department has released a consultation document which seeks to limit the number of klondykers and requires notice of applications for transshipment licences. That move is intended to improve the management of the transshipment arrangement without interrupting the operation of legitimate fishing interests. However, I understand that there are some potential practical difficulties in requiring advance notice when vessels often do not make decisions to come and fish until the last minute.
The Government's response also says that the Department of Transport, the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will prepare a consultation paper on options for future action, including a possible linkage between compliance with safety standards and the issuing of licences. The Minister will have the opportunity today to inform the House about the time scale for that consultation paper, and when we can expect to see legislation that might flow from it.
When presenting the Donaldson report to the House, the former Secretary of State said:
We shall be considering those recommendations urgently so that we can have appropriate measures in place before the klondyker fleet returns".—[Official Report, 17 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 677.]
We are about to see the second return of the klondyker fleet, and there is still no indication that the necessary legislation will be brought before the House. The issue generates considerable concern in my constituency. That concern is not so obvious during the summer months, but we do not want to approach another winter and the return of the klondyker fleet with no idea what legislation will link safety standards to the issue of licences.
Another related matter is the problem of insurance. When the Pionersk ran aground, there were questions about its insurance. I have advised some of my constituents to take the matter up with the solicitors acting for the agents of the Pionersk, because, although it was clear where the liability lay, it was not clear whether my constituents could receive any compensation because there was no insurance. The Lerwick harbour trust and the Shetland islands council have expressed similar concerns.
I welcome the fact that the Government say in their response that they will accept, in principle, Lord Donaldson's recommendation for compulsory liability insurance. We are told that the IMO's legal committee will begin formal consideration of that matter in 1996. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what time scale he anticipates for that consideration.
At the North sea conference earlier this month, we received considerable support from our North sea partners about the idea of compulsory insurance. In the meantime, is it possible to have separate arrangements for uninsured fish factory ships, given that they require a licence, are in our waters and anchor at United Kingdom ports? Is it possible to introduce more stringent insurance


requirements for them now, rather than waiting until 1996, when the formal consideration of compulsory insurance begins?
On surveillance, Lord Donaldson's recommendation that there should be worldwide use of automatic transponders to enable vessels to be tracked and interrogated received support from all sides. For the most part, that would allow the early identification of trouble when vehicles stall or are clearly not making adequate progress, and the coastguard and other safety agencies could be alerted at a much earlier stage.
Last July, some Shetland Islands councillors and I met the former Shipping Minister, the noble Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to discuss a number of issues rising out of the Donaldson report. I was very impressed by Lord Mackay's commitment to the various issues, not least that of transponders. He said that, during the summer recess, he planned to visit a number of European capitals to press the case for transponders. However, before the sun set that day, he was a Social Security Minister.
The Government have tried to pursue the issue, and the report suggests that it is gaining some momentum. However, I have read press reports in the last two or three months which suggest that the proposal has been knocked back in the relevant committee of the IMO. Will the Minister explain the present situation with regard to the requirement to fit automatic transponders to vessels?
There is considerable strength of feeling in the Shetlands—and I suspect in other places, such as the Minches and the western approaches—that there should be some kind of radar surveillance pending the proper implementation of transponders. The Government have said that they will operate mobile radar, and they are already doing so on a basis similar to a police speed trap, as Lord Donaldson suggested. A radar was placed in the Fair Isle channel at the turn of the year, and I should be interested to learn what the results have been.
In the absence of transponders, there is a strong view that there should be some form of surveillance in order to spot vehicles quickly when they get into difficulty. That could be achieved at modest cost, not only by radar but also by aerial surveillance. The Government have extended aerial surveillance hours from 500 to 625 per annum on a trial basis. The Shetland Islands council has surveillance spotter planes which fly for up to 400 hours per annum checking on vessels coming in and out of Sullom Voe. I think that we can do more to monitor the activities of vessels while we await the introduction of an automatic and highly scientific means of tracking them.
The surveillance issue raises the fundamental question of what to spot when tracking vessels. There is widespread concern about illegal discharges from vessels. As Lord Donaldson observed, although incidents such as the Braer, Torrey Canyon or Amoco Cadiz attract headlines, day in, day out, week in, week out and year in, year out, routine and often illegal discharges put much more oil into the seas than some headline-grabbing casualties.
The difficulties for enforcement authorities in trying to bring an offending vessel to book are immense. I would be interested to know whether there has ever been a successful prosecution in recent times. My understanding of the MARPOL rules is that, since July 1993, permitted discharges of oil and oily waste have been limited to 30

litres of oil per nautical mile travelled. It would challenge any procurator fiscal or the Crown Prosecution Service to prove in court that that limit had been exceeded.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Government and all parties in ensuring the swift passage of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994, which for the first time applies the same rules to vessels other than tankers, which are often just as guilty—if not more so—of making small but persistent and damaging discharges as they travel around our coasts?

Mr. Wallace: I certainly give credit to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), whose private Member's Bill enjoyed all-party support and made considerable improvements in that and other respects. Whether the discharge comes from a tanker or any other vessel, the problem is that it cannot be measured. That is why many people agree that we should be looking for a regime of zero discharges of oily wastes in the long term. The North sea ministerial conference earlier this month made a commitment only to research, rather than to action. It would be helpful if the Minister will show a greater sense of urgency in tackling illegal discharges.
Once there are in place more means of spotting vessels that get into trouble, one must have the means of doing something about it. The Government responded to the Donaldson recommendation to use salvage tugs on an experimental basis, which were positioned in Dover and Stornoway. The trial period is about to end, so it might be premature to ask the Minister for conclusions—although it would be interesting to know whether there have been any preliminary findings.
I regret that it has not been possible to place a salvage tug in northern waters. It is a long way from Stornoway to even where the Braer went aground. Although there is tug capacity at both oil terminals in my constituency, neither has tugs capable of the kind of salvage operation of which the tugs at Dover and Stornoway are capable. The North sea conference made a commitment to greater international co-operation in the provision of salvage capacity. I hope that the northern North sea will be identified as qualifying, given the volume of oil tanker traffic there.
The vessels used in the trial were themselves the subject of some controversy, given that they fly under the flag of some obscure state.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: St. Vincent.

Mr. Wallace: That does not strike one as a contender for the most efficient flag state. Given the emergency nature of the work done by those tugs, one cannot help wondering whether language problems—identified time and time again in incidents—would be wholly overcome in an emergency. That matter is of some concern in the shipping industry. I would be interested to know also whether the language problem will be addressed when assessing such arrangements.
There is so much to say. I have not dealt at length with crewing standards, but human error is responsible for around 80 per cent. of accidents at sea. However, all worthwhile measures cost money. Effective port state control costs money, and the Marine Safety Agency must have the resources to undertake important survey work.


The Coastguard Agency must be lifted from the demoralised state indicated by the comments of a number of its employees.
Writing in Petroleum Review last October, Mr. C. J. Parker, secretary of the Nautical Institute, concluded his review of the Donaldson report:
Certainly, commercial operations demand a level of risk and whilst this is inevitable in any competitive industry the aim of regulation, enforcement and inspection must be to eradicate the sub-standard and ensure that dangerous shortcuts do not pay.
There is continuing concern that, if the shipping industry could get away with dangerous short cuts, it would. It is incumbent on the House to make sure that short cuts are not possible, address the issues with a sense of urgency, and remember that the pollution of our sea and marine environment can have damaging effects on employment onshore as well as on people who make their living plying the seas.
It is important to acknowledge the potential cost of not taking some of the measures that Lord Donaldson proposed. I hope that this debate will be one of several to take stock of measures being put in place to ensure that our seas our cleaner and our ships are safer.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on securing it and on making a manful effort to do justice to Lord Donaldson's 103 recommendations.
I ought to declare a sort of interest, in that I have for a number of years practised as a shipping lawyer, and have done more than my fair share of investigating why ships ended up on the rocks, ablaze or whatever. I have an even more direct interest, in that I represent a coastal constituency—as do many hon. Members present. It is terrifying to consider the number of ships that pass through the Dover straits every day. In 1993, 150 vessel breakdowns were reported to Dover coastguard, and I suspect that the 1994 figure will not be lower.
The Donaldson report is a magisterial work of enormous scope and importance. I pay tribute also to Lord Donaldson and to his colleagues, John Rendle, CBE and Professor Alasdair McIntyre, who interviewed 250 individuals and organisations. Some 86 of their recommendations have been accepted, and 14 are being actively considered. I pay tribute to the report of the marine accident investigation branch on the more narrow issue of the Braer, which was also a painstaking effort.
As a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, I will touch on only four aspects. As to pollution—an issue on which I intervened on the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—we are apt to be mesmerised by enormous casualties such as the Torrey Canyon or the Braer, but it is important to remember that pollution is an everyday event on the coast around Eastbourne and elsewhere. Ships passing back and forth—often not tankers but elderly tramp steamers and other vessels—discharge oil into our waters.
That kind of drip, drip effect of everyday pollution is every bit as damaging as, or perhaps more damaging than, the headline cases. That is why it was important that the private Member's Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) with all-party and especially Government support became law last year.
It allowed us to ratify the international convention on salvage, of which more in a moment, to deal with increased compensation for oil pollution and to cover precisely persistent spills from ships other than oil tankers. That legislation has been welcomed by many environmental groups in and near my constituency.
One of the issues that emerges from the Braer report is the whole question of waste reception facilities. As a matter of course, such ships have oily-water contaminated waste that must be received somewhere rather than being dumped straight into the sea.
I shall now discuss the protection of our coasts by the stationing of tugs, a matter that was touched on by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I pay tribute to the work of the salvage working group for putting together ideas on which the Donaldson report drew heavily.
Since the Amoco Cadiz disaster off the French coast, the French Government have seen to it that tugs are stationed at Brest and Cherbourg for just such emergencies. The same policy has been followed for a number of years in South Africa. Donaldson recommendation No. 85 touches on how that can be carried out in this country. I am sure that there is an interesting debate in the Department about the combination of public and private sector contributions to deal with that question and the whole issue of franchising, and how it might work in practice.
We have heard about the pilot scheme which, with commendable speed, was put into effect for last winter, with one tug in Dover and the Dover straits and one in Scotland. I have spoken about the number of incidents that are reported in Dover every year. In February, when I last taxed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that issue, the tug at Dover alone had been involved in dealing with some 22 incidents. I do not know whether the Minister has an up-to-date figure. At that time, my right hon. Friend said that the coastguard agency would be presenting its own recommendations to him in June, this month, about what could be done around our coasts in future winters.
The commercial salvage industry has had a difficult decade or so, and cannot necessarily be relied upon to have large expensive tugs stationed around our coasts. Tugs with the right power—the right bollard pull to use the technical expression—are needed in the right place at the right time. There is no point in having the right tug positioned where it cannot get to an incident in time to keep a large tanker off the rocks.
I congratulate the Government on the fact that the 1989 salvage convention has been incorporated into United Kingdom law. That is important in various ways, but it is most important in the context of this debate, because, for the first time, it envisages a salvage tug being rewarded for its contribution to protecting the environment, as well as simply the protection of property or lives. I hope that that will be an extra incentive to commercial salvors to step in and assist on such occasions.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us—if not today, in the fairly near future—how the Government see the stationing of tugs during the coming winter and in winters thereafter.
Finally, I should like to deal with the inspection of ships. In the ordinary way, ships are subject to many different types of inspection by authorities in this or other


countries, by classification societies, by their own flag authorities and by their P+I clubs, which may insist on a condition survey. There will also be SOLAS checks for safety at sea. For tankers, perhaps the most important inspections are those carried out by prospective charterers. One of the most alarming features of those inspections is that a high percentage of tankers is rejected by big companies such as BP and Shell simply because they are not up to scratch.
One can carry out all the actions that I have mentioned and inspect a ship such as the Braer, which was well-found and run by a reputable company as far as I can see, but in that case the master was very much to blame, because his failure to do certain things contributed directly to the tragedy. I was disturbed to see in a newspaper a few days ago that that master is still plying his trade on tankers around the world.
I said in an intervention that it is important to remember that fewer than half the ships transiting the Dover straits or passing through Scottish waters stop at a UK port. That was true not only of the Braer but of the Torrey Canyon. That is why action should be Europe-wide or through the International Maritime Organisation and other international organisations.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has been publishing lists of ships that are not up to standard—the so-called ships of shame. That should continue, but it is only part of the answer.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on precipitating the debate. I also congratulate the Government on, first, their prompt establishment of the Donaldson inquiry; secondly, on the variety of actions that they have already taken, and thirdly, on their continuing determination, through the IMO and other bodies and by unilateral action if necessary, to make our seas genuinely safer.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on achieving a debate on such an important subject. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for his expertise in the subject. He made a telling remark towards the end of his speech, when he referred to the master of the Braer. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, that was a well found ship, whose master must bear a heavy responsibility for the enormous disaster. Despite that, as the hon. Gentleman also said, that master is still plying his trade around the world.
I should like to speak particularly about the quality of ships' crews. The Donaldson report was instigated following the Braer disaster. The Braer was registered in an offshore tax haven and crewed by low-paid, under-qualified foreign seafarers. Its fate was a tragic demonstration of the threat to the marine environment posed by the substandard crewing of ships that ply our waters.
The British fleet has an enviable record of maritime safety and I hope that that proud record will continue. However, the British merchant fleet is increasingly crewed not by British seafarers, but by low-paid foreign-recruited seafarers. There has been a decline of more than 70 per cent. in the British seafaring population since 1979.
It is easy for a Labour party member to blame shipowners for the policy of recruitment of cheap labour abroad, but I do not entirely blame them. Surely, no business is more openly exposed to foreign competition than the British maritime business. British shipowners are exposed to that foreign competition. They are assisted by section 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which discriminates against foreign seafarers on United Kingdom ships, in that it enables shipowners to pay local rates of pay to foreigners who are recruited abroad.
That has an inevitable consequence for the quality of crews on our ships. It happens not only in the deep-sea trade, but in the coastal and ferry trades in UK waters, and in the trade between Britain and Ireland, which especially affects my constituency. I have an interest, in that some of my constituents work or have lost their jobs in that trade.
Low-paid foreign crews are also employed in trade between the UK and the European Community. It is about time that the Government faced up to their responsibility for that position, and gave assistance to British shipowners to enable them to employ the people I know they would wish to employ: good, well-trained British seafarers. That could be done by giving British shipowners relief from national insurance contributions and income tax payments on the British seafarers they employ.
In my remarks so far, I am presuming that British crews are of better quality than some of the crews that are recruited at low cost abroad. That issue relates to the quality of training given to British seafarers. That is another matter in which the Government need to face up to their responsibilities. We have the grants scheme for assistance in the training of seafarers, but the message that I get from seafarers' unions and the Chamber of Shipping is that the amount of money put into that scheme is woefully inadequate. It would certainly be inadequate if the Government faced up to the responsibility to assist British shipowners to recruit more British seafarers.
The number of colleges for training seafarers has declined drastically, from 12 to, I think, four. A maritime nation such as the UK cannot allow the continuation of a grossly inadequate supply of training places for young people wishing to go into maritime trades.
In connection with that, one is considering not only the quality and training of crews on board ships, but the fact that a maritime nation such as Britain needs a goodly supply of people who serve their time at sea with good training, and who then come ashore to pursue maritime-related trades and businesses, many of them concerned with safety at sea. The Government could do a lot more to improve the quality of that supply.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman join me and the Chamber of Shipping in welcoming both the granting and the extension of roll-over relief for capital gains tax purposes, which was announced by the Treasury earlier this year to encourage more ships to come back to the British flag?

Mr. O'Hara: I noted and approved of that, but it is just a small step down the road that the Government need to tread if they are to redress the drastic decline, not only in the British merchant fleet but in the quality of crews that man that fleet.
The subject of ship work conditions is related to the quality of crews and safety on board ships. Here again, an aspect of Government policy militates against safe working


on British ships. I understand that the Government are the only European Union Government who have not yet implemented the International Labour Organisation convention 147 of 1976 on minimum standards in merchant ships, which relates to work conditions on board, to rest periods, and, obviously, to safety at sea.
The Government may well respond to the Donaldson report, but they lack a coherent strategy for the maritime industry. Various aspects of that industry have been mentioned—the offshore and deep-sea trades, and coastal and ferry ships. If the Government had a coherent strategy, which dealt with various aspects of their policy on safety at sea, we would be far more liable to avoid the spectacle of such disasters as the Braer.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I am delighted to follow the knowledgeable speech of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), although I do not quite agree with him that the Government lack a strategy. I hope that the Minister, in his winding-up speech, will tell us the details of that strategy.
I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on securing this debate. It has given us the opportunity to consider the excellent report of Lord Donaldson and—we must not forget—his assessors John Rendle and Professor McIntyre, and to give full recognition of its detail and extent. They have collectively done an excellent job, and made what I hope will be an important contribution to securing a high environmental standard for the seas around our coasts.
After all, the British Isles coastline is one of our most valuable assets. We live by some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, and the Braer disaster, which has been widely investigated in other parallel inquiries, has highlighted the vulnerability of our shores if we do not take steps to improve the chances of their protection, given that we must recognise that no answer is going to be without fallibility.
I represent a landlocked constituency, but, like those in so many places in the United Kingdom, my constituents can reach the coast—in my case, two coasts—within an hour, and frequently do so. As Lord Donaldson so aptly reminds us, we are not alone in our vulnerability to ecological maritime disaster—the Aegean Sea was wrecked off La Coruna in northern Spain just one month before the Braer disaster.
A strong community of interest therefore exists among nations to try to ensure that we have proper regulation and proper safety standards. Action is required not just by ourselves but internationally, through both the European Commission and wider international agreements that are watched over by the International Maritime Organisation here in London, as has already been pointed out.
The work undertaken by Lord Donaldson and his colleagues deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness, which is why the Government's response to the inquiry and their 103 numbered recommendations are so welcome. The text is punctuated by the words "accepted" and, to a lesser extent, "accepted in principle" or "under consideration". It is reassuring to know that the text of the response is referred to as a "snapshot" of Government progress and is not meant to be
the end of the story".

I hope that that lays to rest the fears—they always arise when a report the size of this excellent document is published—that it will sit on Government shelves gathering dust. I believe and hope that the Government's excellent response shows that that is not true. In essence, where no definitive view has been reached, the likelihood is that something more will be forthcoming.
We all know that to produce a report of this complexity and with such detailed recommendations is one thing, but implementation is another. The response is right to point out that shipping is an international business, and for the recommendations to be fully effective, international endorsement and application are required.
I was pleased to see that action is not awaiting the outcome of this report, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in applauding the decision to place emergency tugs in difficult areas, including the volatile waters of the Minch, where, to declare a sort of interest, I very nearly lost my life several years ago on MacBrayne's Loch Seaforth, when we had an extremely hair-raising and difficult crossing. I am well aware of the volatility of those waters.
It is essential that Britain sets an example by ratifying international agreements, and I should be interested in the Minister's comments about progress in that regard.
It may seem obvious that safety and the prevention of pollution must go hand in hand, which is why the recommendations on flag state control are so important. It is good to see the wide degree of acceptance in the Government's response to the recommendations in that section. To focus on a safety culture goes to the heart of the matter, and I regard the recommendations on pages 368 and 369 of the report as an important part of that.
I am also pleased to see on page 11 of the Government's response that all six recommendations in that area have been accepted. I would have liked to go into greater detail, but I realise that time is short, so I shall just re-emphasise the importance of moving forward on those recommendations.
The work that is now moving towards implementation will obviously place onerous duties on the Marine Safety Agency and the coastguard. Those are important bodies and, as the business plan of the Marine Safety Agency states:
it is responsible for the implementation of the Government's strategy for marine safety and prevention of pollution from ships.
Similarly, in its plan, the coastguard, in its key targets for 1995–96, states that it sees one of those targets as
the maintenance of a national contingency plan.
Those building blocks are essential. It is refreshing to see those key targets spelled out so clearly in the documents, rather than being lost in a mass of verbiage.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, quite rightly, to the need to encourage the International Maritime Organisation to fulfil its responsibilities and not necessarily to bow to the lowest common denominator. That is a little unfair to that United Nations organisation, but I am sure that we would all like to encourage not just progress but urgency in its response.
The International Maritime Organisation is the only specialist UN agency that has its headquarters in the United Kingdom, and, as the host country, we have considerable influence. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some assurance that we will play a


positive role in trying to push forward the international aspects of the report and its forward-looking recommendations.
Pollution watch is extremely important. it can be carried out by the coastguard or from the air.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I apologise to the House for missing the first part of what was obviously a comprehensive and thorough speech from the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
My hon. Friend just mentioned earth observation by satellite. Will he join me in pressing for the maximum use of that means of observation? It is a very fast-advancing technology and the Donaldson report is a little pessimistic about its use. It has a great role to play, not just in observation and tracking but in enforcement and deterrence, which are important in prevention.

Mr. Robinson: I fully endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I welcome the recommendation in paragraph 16:51 on page 254 of the report, which covers that point and which urges the Department of Transport to liaise with the Ministry of Defence to keep track of modern technological developments. I agree with my hon. Friend that the recommendation is a wee bit lightly phrased, and I would have liked it to be a little bit more hard-edged and hard-nosed. However, I am sure that the point has not escaped my hon. Friend the Minister, and that he will ensure that the necessary follow-up action is undertaken.
I warmly welcome the report and welcome the decisions, actions and recommendations of the Government. I urge the Minister to pursue those recommendations with great expedition.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on securing the debate, and on covering all the issues in such a detailed and comprehensive way. I agree with every point he made, which makes it easier for me to make some quick points, to which I hope that the Minister will refer.
First, I refer to the concept of marine environmental high-risk areas which was put forward by Lord Donaldson in his report. The Government said that they were contemplating further consideration of that concept, and I should be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the Government's thinking, particularly in terms of negotiations within the EU in order to try to make further progress on that concept. In the Western Isles, we hope that the concept of a high-risk area would be applied not just to small, discrete areas but to larger areas, such as the whole of the Minches, which would be appropriate for an environmental high-risk area.
Secondly, mention should be made of the concept of the recommended deep-water route for tanker traffic west of the Hebrides. It has been a long-standing worry among my constituents that that route is still too close to the shore on the west side of the Western Isles, and that it should be extended further seaward. I reiterate that point.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to radar surveillance. There is monitoring of traffic through the Minches, and the majority of ships' masters who have been questioned by coastguards say that they are

following the recommended routes. However, without radar surveillance or transponders, it is impossible to verify that, and the Government must look at introducing that system urgently.
Finally, there has been much concern because the tugs that are now stationed in Dover and Stornoway—or rather, that were stationed there until April—were not British-owned or British-crewed. They were registered in St. Vincent, and Croatian-owned and manned. The Government might have been able to get away with that as part of a trial period, but it is not a long-term sustainable position.
Quite apart from the political considerations, I believe that it transgresses immigration rules to have a Croatian crew manning a tug permanently based within British waters. The Government will have to be mindful of that, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether they have come to any conclusions about the permanent stationing of tugs.

Ms Joan Walley: In this debate, as in last week's debate on cycling, there is not enough time—certainly not enough time to deal with all the issues connected with the safety of life at sea and the aftermath of the Donaldson report. I shall try to be brief, because I know the Minister has many points to respond to, but I must join everybody who has congratulated the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on the way in which he and the Shetland Islands council have unrelentingly ensured that we take up time and time again the question of what is to happen after the Donaldson report.
Just as the Shetland Islands council wants to set the highest standards for the oil operations off Shetland and at Sullom Voe, so it is crucial that the Government set and enforce similarly high standards.
The real underlying problem is that the Government's policy of doctrinaire dogmatic deregulation is undermining much of our ability to achieve the objectives set by the Donaldson report,, because so many of its 103 recommendations depend on and take for granted a safety culture within our shipping policy. The absence of that, and the way in which deregulation is starting to erode everything, means that the debate is about more than simply how to implement the shopping list of recommendations. It is also about how we must go back to basics on shipping and examine the important issues behind the recommendations.
Let us remind ourselves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) did, that we are talking not only about what happens in Shetland, Orkney and the Western isles but about ship safety throughout United Kingdom waters, all round our coastline—from Dover to Folkestone, from Felixstowe to Humberside, round Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and from Liverpool to Bristol. The report should make sure that we address all the issues connected with ship safety in each of those areas.
Welcome though the report is, we must go back to basics. Yes, I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we need a timetable, and there is now some sense of urgency about that. But no, at the moment we have no mechanism for dealing with the report. We do not even have an annual shipping debate in the House, and there has been delay after delay in responding to Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
There are major concerns. Indeed, in the past week or so, we have seen how the Government are privatising part of what was the work of the surveyor general's organisation but is now the Marine Safety Agency. If that privatisation goes ahead, where shall we find the expertise and resources that were once within the Department of Transport, with the amalgamation of different agencies within the Department? Where will we find the expertise to make the recommendations to the International Maritime Organisation so that the Donaldson recommendations can be taken up?
I understand that there have been cuts of 14.8 per cent. in the Marine Safety Agency—7.4 per cent. in the marine accident investigation branch and 6.4 per cent. in the coastguard. How then shall we be able to deal with the basics of ship safety and the emergency work that the report called for? How shall we be able to ensure that, on 1 July, the coastguard will have the resources to handle the 2182 kHz frequency distress signals that have now been transferred to it? That might not have been a key recommendation of the report, but it is all part and parcel of the basic safety regime we need, on which all the other recommendations depend.
There are other aspects of the safety work, such as what is happening in Dover. We have already heard how the Dover strait is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. It is here off our south coast—but what have the Government done? They have made the extraordinary decision to close RAF Manston and reduce the search and rescue capability in the channel off Dover. How is that compatible with ship safety?
I repeat that all the Donaldson recommendations depend on the safety regime and safety culture that is being undermined. It has been further undermined by the commencement order that the Department of Transport is about to introduce to end the British officer nationality requirement on board British-registered ships. A whole culture is being eroded because of deregulation, and we must take those issues seriously.
There were many paragraphs in the report about the klondykers and the fish battery ships. We were told that the Government would take action to deal with them. In the winter, my colleagues and I went on delegations to the Bulgarian embassy to try to deal with the serious problems that, although they are an understandable result of the massive changes in eastern Europe, are undermining the United Kingdom's ability to uphold standards of shipping safety. Why is there still only a consultation paper? Why have the urgent steps that Donaldson recommended not been taken?
We are concerned not only about accidental spillages but about the wider pollution threat. Lord Donaldson's report dealt with more than accidental spills from shipping; his recommendations covered pollution by chemicals and garbage as well as by oil.
Like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is most concerned, I want the Minister to tell us when he intends to publish the results of the Government's questionnaire survey of reception facilities in our 350 ports and harbours, which was initiated at the same time as the report by the marine accident investigation branch.
We would also like to know what further action the Government propose to take to encourage greater use of port waste disposal facilities. Do they support the idea that fees for the use of reception facilities in the United

Kingdom should be incorporated into standard port dues, as recommended in the report? In view of the responses that the Government have received to their consultation document on port reception facilities, what new statutory duties do they plan to place on port authorities?
As I have said, serious doubts remain. They certainly remain in Shetland Islands council, which says:
Having studied HMG's response, the overall reaction is one of even greater disappointment because HMG has chosen to ignore most of the pressing matters and intends to take action which is largely symbolic and ineffective at least in the short to medium term on others.
Will the Minister tell us that we shall have the opportunity of an annual debate on shipping to set out the basic objectives, to monitor progress and to take on board all the points raised in this all too short debate, including crew competence, which was so admirably discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South?
In the past few weeks, we have seen enormous public concern about whether Shell would be allowed to dump the Brent Spar oil rig in the sea. Unless the Government start to take the issue of oil spills seriously as an aspect of shipping policy as a whole, it is not only Opposition Members who will comment on the prevarication and delay that has prevented real action. Our feelings are shared by people the length and breadth of the country.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that we do not have enough time for this debate. There is certainly not enough time for me to follow her down the magical paths that she traces. In my experience, she has a wonderful, almost magical, ability to witter on and manage completely to miss the point, unlike the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who is consistently assiduous on behalf of his constituents, and considerate, concerned and fair in the way in which he approaches these issues. He showed those qualities again today.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson), and to the hon. Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for their contributions. I hope that all hon. Members will forgive me if I am not able to respond to all the points that have been made. I shall endeavour to write to hon. Members about any points that I do not cover.
I turn first to the most important assertion made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—his concern about the lack of a timetable for the implementation of Lord Donaldson's recommendations in his excellent report. I make clear our commitment to the whole process. Putting to one side the many initiatives that we have already undertaken—they are laid out for all to see in our response—we have undertaken to consult on a number of key issues.
I think that the hon. Gentleman understands that the complexities of these matters and the recognition by Lord Donaldson of the need to develop some of his recommendations mean that we are obliged to consult widely. It is clear that we have to cover the full range of interests concerned and that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to proceed, generally speaking, via the International Maritime Organisation or through other international organisations.
Almost all our initiatives will have been started by the end of this year; most have already begun. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is experienced in these matters, that, although we have control over when we submit proposals to organisations such as the IMO, we do not have control over the time they take to deliberate and then to reach a decision.
It is a mark of the quality of Lord Donaldson's recommendations that we have invariably secured the support of other states when we have suggested international action. However, his recommendations cover a wide area, and we have had to establish priorities in taking initiatives forward.
Hon. Members have referred to the role of the Marine Safety Agency and the coastguard in taking forward the Donaldson recommendations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome noted, targets have been set for both agencies. In both their business plans for this year, there are references to the Donaldson recommendations that are of direct interest to each agency.
Time does not allow me to narrate them. Suffice it to say that copies of the business plans for both agencies are in the Library of the House. Sixteen of the key tasks against which the MSA's performance will be measured relate to taking forward Donaldson's initiatives, and they are spelled out in the business plan.
We have set firm time scales for the actions that are within our control. This month marks the first anniversary of the publication of the detained ships list. My noble friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping will comment shortly on our first year's experience. There is a consensus that other states have followed our example because they can see that there is real merit in publishing port state detention lists to deter substandard operating.
Our central strategy lies in the four consultation exercises that we promised when the response was published. The consultation exercises cover four areas: the provision of waste reception facilities in UK ports, tackling the problem of substandard and uninsured vessels, the response to pollution incidents, and the funding of port state control and emergency response capabilities.
The first consultation paper, on waste reception facilities, has already been issued. We shall do all that we can to ensure that port waste facilities are adequate and easy to use, and that they are used. We have consulted widely on a number of specific proposals designed to improve the facilities and to encourage their use. We entirely agree that more needs to be done.
There has been a good response to our specific proposals, and a number of positive suggestions have been made which we need to consider carefully during the summer. We expect to reach conclusions on the way forward with waste reception facilities over the next few months, and we shall announce the measures we propose to take as soon as possible.
I say, in parenthesis, that I understand the gentle sense of frustration felt by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the absence of regular progress reporting on the almost impenetrable international negotiation over such a wide arena. I shall carefully consider that point and discuss it with my noble Friend, because I think that there is merit in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a regular

six-month round-up and report to the House on where we are. That is in everyone's interests, and I understand how important it will be to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally.
On substandard and uninsured ships, Lord Donaldson's proposals on port state control are, as he said, the cornerstone of his report. These ideas will be most effective if they are agreed at regional level. The United Kingdom presented proposals on this matter to the Paris MOU on port state control, and the proposals were referred to the working group on harmonisation where they were recently examined in detail.
There was general agreement in principle to many of the proposals, and they are now being developed. We suggested significant improvements to the European Union directive on port state control, which was adopted by the Transport Council last week, so that it could easily be amended to take account of future Donaldson-inspired proposals. Lord Donaldson himself was concerned that the directive might fossilise current Paris MOU practices; we believe that our efforts have avoided this.
The problem of the klondykers and other substandard and uninsured fish factory ships operating in our waters has been a great concern to the House generally, and especially to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We have addressed the problem in a number of ways. Since last July, the MSA has been carrying out a programme of inspections on klondykers. Those found to be substandard are detained if they are in port or instructed to remedy deficiencies if they are inspected at anchor outside port. That inspection programme will continue.
The Scottish Office is now implementing a new fisheries management regime. The number of fish transshipment licences issued will be limited henceforth, and an advance notice period for applying for them is now required. We hope that that will go some way to limiting the number of substandard klondykers operating in our waters this year, but we know that we also need to deal with the standard of ships that do come. In addition to continuing our inspection programme, we are at the final stage of drafting the consultation paper on ways in which to overcome the problems that klondykers and similar ships pose.
It has been suggested that we are dilatory in seeking action on compulsory insurance, but I do not think that that charge holds water. We were in the lead in establishing the principle of compulsory insurance for oil spills. The diplomatic conference next year should establish compulsory insurance for damage caused by ships carrying hazardous and noxious substances.
We have also pressed the IMO for international action on compulsory insurance for other types of damage, and our proposal has been put on the legal committee's work programme. We are now formulating proposals to require compulsory third-party insurance for ships using our ports or operating within our waters. If we proceed with these proposals, following the consultation exercise, we shall need to press for early international action on compulsory insurance, because a number of vessels pass through our waters on innocent or transit passage, and we must ensure that they are adequately insured. We can achieve that only by international agreement.
I now turn to radar, and to marine environmental high-risk areas. Lord Donaldson saw a limited role for radar monitoring. Although the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may not agree, that is what Lord Donaldson concluded.
We have, however, undertaken two radar monitoring exercises at the Fair isle strait, using a mobile radar located at Fitful head, and we have also conducted similar monitoring in the Scilly isles and in the Smalls off the Pembroke coast. All these exercises showed a high level of compliance with established routing restrictions. We shall read the results in conjunction with Lord Donaldson's recommendations on the establishment of marine environmental high-risk areas, and we shall undertake further mobile radar monitoring in the Minches.
Lord Donaldson also recommended the use of salvage tugs to offer assistance to vessels around the United Kingdom coast. As an interim measure, we funded an emergency towing trial involving two tugs covering the Dover strait and the Minch. That trial, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, has now finished. It has given us some valuable practical experience of tug operation. The results will be included in the report of the study team which is is to be submitted to Ministers this month. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
On transponders, it is right that we do not want ships to be able to continue to operate anonymously off our coast. We have therefore pursued vigorously an agreement on mandatory transponders, and we will maintain our pressure on the IMO. Pending agreement on transponders, we have acted on Lord Donaldson's recommendation that ships should have clearly visible recognition marks, and we presented proposals on that to last month's meeing of the IMO maritime safety committee. Those proposals are new being considered by the appropriate subcommittee.
I want to get across the point that the Government participate fully in international agreements to secure effective compensation. Through the the United Kingdom's membership of the international oil pollution compensation fund, over £41 million has been paid to inhabitants of the Shetland Islands for damage caused by the Braer. My noble Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We now move to the next debate.

Transatlantic Free Trade Area

Sir Roger Moate: I should begin by saying how much I appreciate that the debate is to be answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology. He will not misunderstand if I say that I had rather hoped that we would have my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, as we do not know what position my hon. Friend the Minister may occupy in a week or two's time, we shall listen to, and weigh with even more care, his answers to what I believe is an important debate.
I welcome the opportunity for the House to discuss the idea of a transatlantic free trade area, even though it is a very large concept to explore in a short Adjournment debate on a quiet Wednesday morning. However, it is a chance to put on record and stress the importance of the British Government putting their weight behind an idea which in recent months has gained support from a large number of influential voices in this country and abroad. If we can turn it from an idea into a reality, the prize is very great indeed, not just in terms of trade, goods or services but in terms of foreign policy.
Those powerful voices include the Canadian Trade Minister, who called last year for a North American-Europe free trade area, and the European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, who has strongly supported the idea in a number of speeches, one of which I heard recently. I also recall the United States trade representative Mickey Kantor speaking with approval of the idea some time ago, although I do not have his exact words.
There have been supportive speeches by Henry Kissinger, and by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in an impressive speech in support of the principle to the Economic Club in Chicago last May. Last October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence put forward similar ideas for a new Atlantic community to promote common interests, including free trade. That is an impressive range of support and I, for one, do not doubt that this is an idea whose time has come.
I will be frank with my hon. Friend the Minister. I fear that the idea is not going to be promoted in all quarters with the zeal that I believe that it deserves. I fear that it may be shunted off into the sidings or, to mix my metaphors, killed with kindness, praised with faint damns and gradually discarded as too difficult, challenging or risky. I believe that the British Government should now make clear their full support and take the initiative with the United States, the other nation states of Europe and, presumably, the European Commission, to put in hand a serious study to see how such an agreement could be negotiated and formalised and how it could or should be structured and monitored.
The name transatlantic free trade area, or TAFTA in the shorthand that is gaining ground, is a title now much used, but it is not one that I especially like. One may ask what is in a name, but there is a great deal in a name if an idea is to command support. The trouble with TAFTA is that it suggests to some people that it could be an exclusive regional trading block concerned mainly with the reduction of tariffs, whereas we know that the modern world is not like that. The main problem is no longer tariff


barriers, but non-tariff barriers. The goal is not simply tariff-free zones, but the single market concept with minimal impediments to free, fair and unsubsidised trade.
If we consider who would be members of TAFTA, we realise that it would include the members of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Area—Canada, the United States and Mexico—and all members of the European Community. It would presumably extend to the applicant nations of eastern Europe, to the Mediterranean countries and to the members of the European Economic Area, notably Norway. The area would extend from the Pacific coast of America across central Europe, from the Arctic circle to the gulf of Mexico. "Transatlantic" is inadequate to describe a common or free market on a scale of that order.
It is important to ensure that this is not seen as a trading bloc because that would be a non-starter and not necessarily in British interests. It should not be a trade bloc, but a building block to construct freer world trade and complementary to the functions of the World Trade Organisation. It could be argued that a new round of world trade talks would achieve greater results, but how many years did the Uruguay round take to negotiate?

Mr. Stuart Bell: Fifteen years.

Sir Roger Moate: I thought that it was seven, but the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) says that it took 15 years. I do not detect any great enthusiasm for launching another Uruguay round before the existing round has been implemented. That is not politically realistic. I believe that there is the political will—and I have given evidence of it—in the United States and Europe to forge ahead with a more limited regional negotiation to secure that single market. We should grasp that opportunity.
The problem that TAFTA would be perceived as an exclusive regional bloc must be dealt with and the idea nailed straight away because it is not true. A report from the World Trade Organisation published in World Trade News states:
The rapid growth worldwide of regional economic groupings has not so far impeded the development of freer world trade and has sometimes helped to promote it, according to a report by the World Trade Organisation. There have been no fortress-type regional arrangements among WTO members.
It goes on:
It is clear that, to a much greater extent than is often acknowledged, regional and multinational integration initiatives are complements rather than alternatives in the pursuit of open trade … some regional agreements have enabled members to accept obligations to liberalise faster than required by the Gatt and helped stimulate
progress at the multilateral level. It is very important to understand that, as we are looking for a system which stimulates freer world trade and is in no way seen as an exclusive local bloc.
In his speech in Chicago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested that we could be pathfinders in the World Trade Organisation in that role. It is clear that despite the success of the Uruguay round, which is now being implemented by the WTO, there remains an immense range of impediments to trade. The world is littered with financial land mines which need to be cleared.
A commitment by Europe and north America to a programme of dismantling non-tariff barriers could be of benefit to the whole world and not just to those who would be members of such an agreement. However, it cannot be seen to be exclusive because the days have passed when tariff walls could be erected, unless we envisage the whole of GATT and the world trade deals being dismantled. That is possible, but it would be a pretty disastrous sort of world. We must understand that tariff barriers, whether real or threatened, should be not be seen as a real threat.
I have a note from the Library which says that tariffs on manufactured goods after the GATT round should come down on average from 5 to 3 per cent. In other words, being excluded from these zones—even if it were a real threat—is not the serious issue, because non-tariff barriers are a much greater impediment. Tariff walls are now low and cannot seriously be used to threaten others with exclusion as though we were somehow going to raise new tariff barriers around a fortress Europe or a fortress TAFTA. There is no sense in that, so we should not use the threat of exclusion to frighten the horses, whether we are talking about world deals or European free trade arrangements.
We in this country have a powerful interest in a world free of barriers, a world of free, fair and open trade. It is worth reminding people of our nation's exporting success. We are still the fifth largest exporter of goods and services in the world, which is a remarkable achievement. We export more per head than Japan and the United States. Incidentally, we are the largest foreign investor in the United States—our investments there now stand at $85 billion. It is also worth noting that United States investment in the United Kingdom is now greater than its investment in the whole of Asia and the Pacific region.
There should be no doubt about our vested interest in extending the concept of a single market, but it has to be a single market enshrined in international treaties. Those treaties should extend as far and as wide as the nations willing to accept those treaties' commitments.
Let us be frank. When we start pointing the finger at nations which have tariff barriers or non-tariff barriers against us, we should remember that many of the worst distortions are in Europe, on our own doorstep. We have to deal with them. I suggest that the existence of a TAFTA, or whatever we decide to call it in the end, could help us to get a better deal for British industry and the British taxpayer in Europe.
Only this morning, I read of a rescue package for Iberia International Airlines. I do not know whether one can talk of a level playing field for airlines, but that rescue package is a classic example of a non-tariff barrier, or major impediment, to free and fair competition. We are told that Iberia is to receive £700 million. Air France has had a similar subsidy, and those two airlines are not the only ones. Yet British Airways has to succeed without subsidy and, to its credit, it does so—indeed, it triumphs. It has to obey the rules, as do other British airlines, and also to compete with unfair competition and subsidised low fares. That is happening on our doorstep.
I suggest that it would help us to get a fairer market in Europe if, simultaneously, we were negotiating international trade rules which made it ever harder to introduce such subsidies. There is also much to be done in the world of shipping, banking, securities, insurance, films and the mutual recognition of chemicals. It would be greatly in our interest if we could secure agreement across a wide single market.
The biggest distortion of all is the common agricultural policy. It is a mighty system of protectionism and intervention, which costs us £34 billion a year, or £20 a week in tax alone for each British family. Moreover, that does not take into account the additional cost of food imposed on the average family.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every cow or beef animal in the United States has $500 worth of subsidy behind it and that there are now more bureaucrats working for the United States Department of Agriculture than there are farmers? When it comes to subsidising agriculture, our friends in America are no slouches compared with the European CAP merchants.

Sir Roger Moate: If I can take that to mean that the hon. Gentleman is as anxious as I am for a disarmament deal, as it were, across the Atlantic and that he is willing to dismantle the bureaucratic structure of the CAP here, he will command widespread support. Until now, I had not detected his enthusiasm for a total dismantling of the CAP which, I had understood, was to him not just subsidy for cows but subsidy for a herd of sacred cows that he was not anxious to see slaughtered.
There is a massive distortion of the market. I should have thought that any new trade negotiations would give impetus to the task that we face in fundamentally reforming the CAP. We know that the CAP will become bankrupt in its present form once the Community is enlarged. If we have concurrent negotiations with other parties while we are trying to reform the CAP, they will act as an additional spur to all of us to get it right at last. We could not enter into such negotiations without a commitment to re-examine protectionist agricultural policies in all the countries involved. We need those negotiations if we are to make sense of an enlarged community and the CAP, so that we can use international trade negotiations to our great advantage. We cannot put up with the present nonsense ad infinitum.
In such a debate, it is fair to cite such examples of distortion which, although we find them irritating, are serious. How can we justify continuing to spend £1 billion a year on subsiding tobacco growing in the European Community when European institutions are spending several millions on discouraging the consumption of tobacco? Such subsidies are falling, but only marginally. The system continues because it is part of the deal. We must somehow find levers to change that kind of institutionalised support.
We spend £800 million to support wine production, much of it undrinkable and not intended to be drunk. We also spend £1.5 billion a year on the fruit and vegetable regime, although not much of it comes back to the British grower. It is an unacceptable waste of money and a distortion of the market. France in particular grows vast quantities of apples, a third of which are destroyed every year. Such systems of support have to be examined. We have made that point so often in the House, but little has been done.
Alongside reform of the CAP, we need parallel negotiations with the United States, the NAFTA countries and others to stimulate us to take action at last. The point is that such support systems distort our home market and our tax system as well as world trade, and they damage us severely.
When I was in Washington recently with a delegation from the British-American parliamentary group, we raised the subject of NAFTA at meeting after meeting with senators and congressmen and with representatives from the state department of national security, among others. Wherever we went, we found that the idea was well received. There was a high level of awareness there of the subject—it was on the agenda. There was an awareness of the speeches that had been made in support of it. I do not think that I am being unfair to anyone when I say that there was no opposition to the idea, but rather a general welcome for it. I emphasise yet again, however, that we are still at the idea stage. We need initiatives from the Government to translate our ideas into reality.
There is much more to the concept than trade, important though that is. I conclude by quoting the Secretary of State for Defence who last October called for a new Atlantic community. He said:
The European Union, Nato, the US and Canada are all the product of many centuries of European progress and civilisation. An Atlantic Community"—
which is the title that he gave to this important political idea—
would be a historic and appropriate initiative as we approach a new century and the third millennium.
The question now is, will we go for this great goal or will we play safe and kick it into touch? I fear that we are in danger of doing the latter.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on obtaining this debate and on the forceful case that he made. I must add another name to the list of early proponents of the idea—Mr. Lane Kirkland, the president of the American Federation of Labour-Congress of Industrial Organisations, who, in an impressive article in 1992 in the International Herald Tribune, underlined the need for what he called a north Atlantic free trade area. Since there is now a patent on the name NAFTA for the Mexican-Canadian-United States regional trading block, the hon. Member for Faversham has come up with TAFTA. We will see whether that sinks into consciousness. Like him, I am not sure whether it has the ring of long-term sustainability.
I support much of what the hon. Member for Faversham said. I was glad of the emphasis that he placed on the need to keep the United States of America and Canada firmly linked to Europe. I noticed the entry of some recently vulcanised members of the Conservative party to the Benches behind him. Doubtless they were coming to pray in aid the concept of a north Atlantic or transatlantic free trade area against the European Union. I find the two wholly complementary.
As we enter the 21st century, we face the great danger that the glue which kept many countries with different cultures and market economies together in the second half of the 20th century—opposition to communism—has dissolved and we must make every effort, through Government policy and especially through ideas, to avoid a new world of warring capitalist blocks.
That is a significant danger and it is why I strongly favour ensuring that the enhanced development of the European Union, in which our country should play a leading part rather than the opt-out role that it has taken


in recent years, is clearly linked with a firm relationship with the United States—both in trade and in a military alliance. I do not want Europe to decouple itself from the United States, which would pose a great danger not merely to world trade but to world harmony and, perhaps, world peace.
The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, often stresses our need to "Asianise" ourselves and turn away from Europe. Whereas the slogan of the hon. Member for Faversham is, "Westward ho! The sun is bright", the slogan of the right hon. Member for Guildford is, "Eastward ho! There is money to be made." One must not favour any region at the expense of the region in which, for good or ill, this country is anchored—the European continent.
Contrary to the views of many commentators in the press, I want the special relationship between the two English-speaking countries to be enhanced and strengthened. It has been undermined by Government action, especially the gross interference in the election of the present US President. I visit Washington regularly and have many American friends. That interference is still remembered bitterly. If some words of apology or regret could be found in the language of diplomacy, it would be no bad thing for the relationship between London and Washington, or for London's future ability to act as the pivot for exactly the enhanced free trade area that the hon. Member for Faversham described.
We must consider seriously the problems of United States protectionism. I have here a report from Brussels. Not everything that comes out of Brussels is wise or true, but serious protectionist barriers, both direct tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers, exist in US legislation and mitigate against the sort of free trade community that the hon. Member for Faversham advanced. One barrier is the well known state discrimination in banking, which, although it has been somewhat reduced, in essence still means that Lloyds or Barclays cannot open up a branch wherever they want to in the United States, as they now can in Europe.
Airline ownership is another problem. The hon. Member for Faversham referred to British Airways, but under US law foreign companies are limited to just 25 per cent. of the voting stock in any US airline. Another barrier is the countervailing duties imposed on the steel industry, which is of direct interest to my constituents in Rotherham. It is based on the false argument that British Steel is still subsidised by the Government. We can argue about the nature of the British Steel privatisation, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that it is now a wholly private company which receives no Government subsidies and has not done for some years. None the less, the countervailing duties were slapped on arbitrarily to protect the US steel industry.
The Jones Act ensured that all coastal traffic, which in the United States forms an immense part of the shipping market, is limited to US flag-carrying ships. The Cargo Preference Acts of 1904 and 1954 state that 50 per cent. of all US Government-generated cargoes must be carried by US flag carriers. Smaller barriers include the Cuban Democracy Act, which is the most disgraceful interference in our right to trade with Cuba. I do not particularly like the Cuban Government—nor do I like the

Chinese Government and many other Governments—but it is not helpful for one country to penalise British firms and investors who trade with and in that country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): As the first British Minister to visit Cuba for 20 years when I visited the country in September, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government never accepted the extra-territorial aspects of American legislation, such as the 1992 legislation to which he referred. Neither would the Government accept any extra-territorial aspects if further legislation, such as that proposed by Senator Helms, were enacted.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for that reassurance as, I am sure, are other hon. Members. There is a worry, however, that the United States, particularly with its new Republican majority—there, too, the spirit of Vulcan is reigning in the form of Senator Helms and Speaker Gingrich—is adopting a neo-isolationist, America-first policy. If the US continues down that road and rejects the need to work multilaterally in the World Trade Organisation—or, indeed, if we go down that road and reject the need to work multilaterally in other United Nations agencies, such as the International Labour Organisation—we shall live in a world of sauve qui peut, beggar my neighbour and every country for itself, without the benefits that trade can bring. When discussing the issue, therefore, it is best that we put our cards on the table and say that US protectionism causes substantial problems.
NAFTA has not worked as well as its architects had hoped and has particularly not worked to a similar extent as the integration of much poorer countries in the construction of the European Union. In a globalised and transnationalised economy, one cannot divorce economic relations from civil society, and in particular one cannot divorce economic relations from the obligations and needs that people have as citizens of a country. Therefore, if we are to build a transatlantic free trade area, we must take on board the requirement to build in environmental considerations and social obligations.
I was pleased with a speech that Sir Leon Brittan made only last week in which he urged European and American policy-makers and Government leaders to open world markets for foreign investment. But he stressed that multinational companies, as the principle vectors of foreign investment and of opening trade, must accept that
a code of conduct for good corporate citizens could be useful in allaying the concerns expressed, particularly in developing countries, about the impact of foreign investment on society and on government policy.
Sir Leon expressed the need to build into an opening of world trade an acceptance of social and environmental responsibilities, and he criticised the opposite stance in the investment debate, in which American multinationals are
publicly opposing the inclusion in the multilateral investment agreement of existing OECD guidelines for international companies. I believe this is a short-sighted approach.
I very much agree with the European Commissioner. One of the problems of the Clinton Administration is that they have failed to take seriously the need for effective regulation of the activity of the corporations that now control so much of world trade and world investment. Conservative Members may blanch at the thought of a transatlantic social charter being a part of the process, but


I put it to them that, if they are looking for a Single Transatlantic Act that some future Prime Minister might sign that is simply based on free trade, they will get nowhere.
The only reason the Single European Act was signed and worked was because it included a wide vision of what trade and economic relations were about. If Tory Members turn away from that—I understand that that may well be the current Tory philosophy—they will end up with countries withdrawing into their shells. Twenty per cent. of the extreme right and fascist vote in the recent French presidential election was delivered on an anti-European ticket. That is a grave warning of what happens when a free trade area does not take on board the need for jobs and social responsibility, and the need for all citizens of a country to have a stake in that enhanced free trade area.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I have heard the argument before that somehow those who believe in free trade are drawing back into themselves. It seems to me that the exact opposite is the case, as those who believe in free trade also believe in the outside world. Is there not a complete inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's argument?

Mr. MacShane: I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of seeking to withdraw into himself, as it were, but if he simply promotes free trade and denies its social and environmental consequences, he will not be able to avoid the pitter-patter of the citizens' feet as they go to vote for Ross Perot, who got 19 per cent. of the vote in the US election, or for Jean-Marie Le Pen and Philippe de Villiers—Sir James Goldsmith's collaborator—who stood in the French presidential election against Europe and to cut France off from that trading bloc.

Mr. Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: I will sit down in a minute. The hon. Gentleman can then make his arguments in full.
The tension between globalised capitalism, transnationals and the increasing organisation of international exchange and the desire of all the people we represent to have a stake in that process has not been fully resolved, and that tension will not go away simply by saying, "Free trade at any price." The massive increase in free trade in the past 15 years has brought with it massive increases in unemployment in many leading countries—I am not saying that it is cause and effect, but it accompanied that increase—and increasing inequality.
I assure the hon. Member for Faversham that I support the underlying premise which moved him to introduce the debate today. Aneurin Bevan made a joke about America and Russia 30 years ago, saying that we had the fierce eagle of the United States and the red bear of the Soviet Union and that Britain's job was to keep those two monkeys apart. I do not see the situation quite like that now. On the contrary, we must keep the United States firmly linked with our European partners. To that extent, I fully support what the hon. Member for Faversham argued in his speech. But we must go beyond free trade to include commitments to democracy, human rights and social construction—the three pillars of English-speaking democracy which have united this country and the United States for so many years.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My support for the idea expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) is precisely because it furthers the cause of free trade. I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that the whole concept of free trade is seriously under fire in the world today. I agree also that it is not just the European Union that is becoming more protectionist and trying to fight its corner against free trade—often with potentially disastrous effects, as was the case with the French influence and concept of protectionism during the Uruguay round.
Also, the cause of free trade is growing in the United States. One view of NAFTA is that it is a trade block in the conventional sense, and a protectionist block. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham that it is not just a question of tariffs, as there are a multitude of different ways in which free trade can be restricted. In the European Union, the primary method is the use of phoney anti-dumping measures.
In the United States, there is the increasing use of something called managed trade, which is another way of blackmailing countries by saying that, if they will not buy your goods, you will not buy theirs. That is clearly a growing force in the United States vis-a-vis Japan at the moment, and that process comes to fruition this week because of the apparent intent of the US to restrict trade with Japan.
I accept that we have a cross-Atlantic protectionist problem and it has a growing body of theory behind it. The hon. Member for Rotherham used Sir James Goldsmith as an example of somebody who is interested in free trade, but the reverse is true. [Interruption.] Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacShane: He is a protectionist.

Mr. Spicer: Precisely. I shall dwell on some of Sir James Goldsmith's views about protectionism later, if I may. There is a great requirement for a restatement of the case for free trade.
Perhaps I ought to declare an interest, as I have just received the manuscript for my book on this exact subject which is to come out in the next few months. It is called "The Challenge of the East". [HON. MEMBERS: "How much is it?"] There is no price on it yet, as it is just hot off the typewriter. I shall not describe the whole book, as it is rather long, but the point is that the case for comparative advantage must be restated. Even if country A is superior to and competitive with country B on every front, it still pays country A to specialise in the areas where it is particularly good, and to buy in for areas where it is not. As a result, not only do the consumers of both countries benefit from cheaper goods, but, crucially, the producers are deprived of the false protection that goes with building barriers around their businesses.
It is somewhat ironic that the new free-trading nations of the Confucian orient have been highly protectionist for the past 400 or 500 years, Consequently, they went down and down from their age-old positions as trading powers. That is especially true of China, which 500 years ago was the greatest economic power on earth. It collapsed solely because of its protectionist and isolationist policies.
Now, the east is mercantile and free trading and, as a result, achieving growth rates ranging from 8 to 10 per cent. over a consistent period, whereas in the west the


cause of protectionism has been gaining ground, with disastrous consequences for its economic performance. It is no fluke that in western countries the growth rate norm is now 2 per cent., compared with the 8 to 10 per cent. in the free-trading east.

Mr. MacShane: I look forward to receiving a review copy of the hon. Gentleman's book. I promise that I will write about it. Does he accept that, although the Asian countries are wonderful exporters, some of them—Korea and Taiwan in particular—have erected an enormous number of barriers against imports, inward investment and participation by foreign investors? It is a one-way mercantilism.

Mr. Spicer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the greatest growth sector of exports, for instance from the USA, is to the east. It is true also of many European countries, and certainly of Britain, that the real export dynamism is to the east. Therefore, it simply is not true to say that the east is restricting its imports. On the contrary, the east has become the locomotive force of the global economy. Were it not for that, we would have greater unemployment in Britain than we have currently.
I want to make two points about the protectionist argument. Goldsmith says that we have entered a new phase where cheap and readily available capital and cheap labour in other countries is putting them in such a strong trading position that it is impossible for the west to compete without some form of protectionism. There is not enough time to examine that argument, so I simply say that it is not true. Capital is not especially mobile at the moment and it is not moving into eastern countries at a fast rate. Indeed, people are scared of investing capital in the east at the moment. Also, it is not true that cheap labour is still a crucial component of competitiveness.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer: I am afraid that I have run out of time. My hon. Friend must make her own speech later.
Labour costs, as a percentage of overall costs, are coming down rapidly; transportation, capital and other costs are now more important. Therefore, Goldsmith's argument cannot be right. Even if it were, the answer would be that to have free trade there must be flexible exchange rates. There must be room for some adjustment. If costs become fundamentally out of line, there must be some give in the system, and that must come from flexible exchange rates. It is one reason why I and others argue against fixed exchange rates. Going beyond that, the truth is that no one country would pile up reserves of foreign currency and simply sit on them; it would recycle them—as have the Japanese.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham has proposed that the Europeans and the Americans should come together in a free trade area that will lead to greater free trade around the world. Provided that that is a stepping stone towards greater global free trade, that must be the right approach. What I find worrying is the possibility of the European Union, with its highly protectionist outlook, combining with NAFTA, which is becoming increasingly protectionist—although not as protectionist as the EU because it has various different

perspectives—and carving up the larger protective market. That is precisely the sort of action that my hon. Friend and I do not want.
Part of the thrust of the ideas coming from people such as Sir Leon Brittan involves further protectionism, on a much wider scale—which, in their view, would help the west to face up to eastern competition in a grand way. That is certainly not what I or my hon. Friend have in mind. Therefore, in the context of wider free trade, my hon. Friend's proposal is to be welcomed.

Mr. Richard Spring: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on securing this important debate and on presenting his arguments so coherently.
It has become something of a cliché that, given our history as a trading nation, our ability to increase our standard of living is dependent on our ability to produce goods and services that both the home market and the world actually want. Through that, we are able to provide Britain's public services. Historically, trade is vital to Britain. As has been said, we export more per capita than either the Japanese or the Americans. Indeed, Britain's extraordinary economic recovery is essentially export led, in particular by the manufacturing sector. That is resulting in falling unemployment, which we all welcome. There are many examples of that in my constituency.
It is entirely to the credit of the British Government that the single European market was forged. It comprises 369 million people and its exports as a percentage of gross domestic product run at 32.6 per cent. There are two key differences between that single market and NAFTA, which has a similar-sized population of 378 million. The per capita income in our single market area is just over $17,000. In NAFTA, despite the relatively lower living standards in Mexico, the figure is $19,693. In addition, despite the United States' external trade performance with the east—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) referred—NAFTA exports as a percentage of GDP run at 11.8 per cent.—just one third of the level of the European Union. In short, NAFTA has a higher GDP per capita but it has a lower propensity to export.
Therefore, even from our narrow perspective sitting here in Britain, or even looking across the single market, it is obvious that there are considerable trading opportunities in a transatlantic free trade area. I must stress immediately that any tie-up would not be political. Although we have strong cultural and historic ties with our friends across the Atlantic—indeed, we all belong to a democratic family of nations—we envisage an economic tie-up only.
I was especially pleased to read about the comments of Warren Christopher, the US Secretary of State, who spoke favourably about a transatlantic free trade area in a speech that he made in Madrid in June. He said:
The long-term objective is the integration of the economies of North America and Europe, consistent with the principles of the World Trade Organisation".
But he added that any moves
must advance our overriding objective of global trade liberalisation, and not disadvantage less developed countries.


He went on to say that trade barriers resulting from differences in product standards and testing should be abolished and aviation agreements between the United States and Europe should be reached to make transatlantic travel easier and cheaper.
I also welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, in a speech in May in Chicago, talked favourably about a link-up between the European single market and NAFTA. When barriers come down and markets increase in size, scope and diversity, the prospect of more jobs, lower prices and greater consumer choice often becomes evident. There is no doubt that if we were to move down that route, as I hope we shall, there would be difficulties.
Those who have spoken in this morning's debate have already alluded to the difficulties of agricultural subsidies and the enormous influence of the US agricultural lobby, particularly for cereals. We know that there have been difficulties in aerospace products and European textiles and ceramics. But despite the problems that arose in the Uruguay round, the long-term objective looks worthy.
Sir Leon Brittan spoke favourably about that development and a uniform investment regime. It is gratifying that, for some months now, officials from the European Union, the American Government and Canada have been looking at the feasibility of a transatlantic free trade area and how it could develop. That could evolve into a regional trading block. There are inherent dangers in that but it is a long way down the pipeline. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham alluded to that matter remarkably well.
Another possibility would be a block-building approach, to concentrate initially on non-tariff barrier areas where it can be difficult to obtain free trade, such as product testing, public procurement, investment and research and development programmes, which often have the effect of mitigating against the free movement of goods and services. We must look seriously at that possibility because free trade, prosperity and jobs are enormously linked to Britain's ability to find those opportunities abroad.
On the advantages of single markets and the breaking down of barriers, it is estimated by the International Institute for Economics that NAFTA would create some 175,000 new jobs in North America. So job creation, which has been markedly more successful than in the European Union, is mooted by the United States to be further helped by the development of NAFTA.
When considering the undoubted advantages of that, we need to take the matter slowly and carefully. After all, NAFTA was signed only in 1992 and came into force in January 1994. After a 15-year period, its final completion will be on 1 January 2009. There was already a basis to build on because of the relationship that had existed for a number of years between the US and Canada, which have a trade agreement called CUSTA—the Canadian-United States Trade Agreement—which goes back to 1985 and was introduced in 1988. NAFTA's objectives, which are to increase investment, trade, employment and living standards, could be transposed successfully into a transatlantic free trade area. Those objectives are desirable in themselves.
This debate has touched on the ambiguous attitudes that we feel towards the Pacific rim countries. Although we admire them for the extraordinary growth and success that they have enjoyed, we must look at our own societies and

realise that difficulties are also implicit in this matter. After all, while the US in general has no free health care service—Canada has an insurance-based system—most of the countries in the European single market have a comprehensive welfare system with expensive employment add-on costs. Essentially, the Pacific rim countries do not have that.
The result has been an exponential growth in the economic living standards and the export directions of those countries because they have pursued regimes of low taxation, very little regulation and minimal welfare provision. They have a long history of mercantile and entrepreneurial traditions, which in the past 20 or 30 years have seen a considerable increase in terms of exporting abroad.
To draw conclusions, it is worth while comparing our performance, either in NAFTA or the single market, with that of the Pacific rim countries. Between 1987 and 1996, it is expected that total growth in the United States will have been 2.5 per cent.; in the European Union 2.4 per cent.; in what has been loosely described as the Asian tigers—Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea and Taiwan—7.5 per cent.; and in China 9.5 per cent. In terms of export volumes, we see a similar discrepancy. Between 1987 and 1996, the total expectation for the US is 9.4 per cent.; for the European Union 5.1 per cent.; and for the Asian tigers a full 13 per cent.
I welcome the fact that, following the Uruguay round, access to the Pacific rim countries is easier. But well into the future, it will be impossible for us on many levels to compete with the low labour costs of countries like China, coupled with extraordinary high individual productivity and now rapidly advancing technological expertise. So we shall be faced with the problem of relatively decreasing competitiveness with the Pacific rim countries, with all the consequences of potential higher unemployment in both North America and Europe.
That is why I welcome the possibility of an extension of the concept of a single market from Europe across the Atlantic to North America. By opening up the markets, we can strengthen our economic performance. We would therefore present ourselves with a further growth in export opportunities and increase our job growth, which will be one of our main problems in the next 15 or 20 years in Europe.
NAFTA, however, has not been without difficulties. We must accept that it is not a panacea that can solve all problems. We should learn from the experience of Mexico, where there were huge inflows of cash into the Mexican stock market, based largely on short-term credit. The current account swelled and ultimately the peso collapsed and there was a run on the financial institutions. There was, at least temporarily, substantial chaos in Mexico. That should be a salutary reminder to us that, in situations where a powerful neighbour is juxtaposed against a weaker economy, despite all the sustenance given to that weaker economy, substantial problems can arise.
May I say in passing that the performance of Britain's economy in the past year has been remarkable, in large measure because of our somewhat unexpected but wholly welcome export performance. There are a number of reasons, one of which is undoubtedly the role that the private sector is playing through more than 100 export promoters, who are linked to the Department of Trade and Industry. They are providing a valuable effort.
The business link programme, which will have up to 200 outlets by the end of the year, is also important. The huge increase in trade missions from this country will ultimately have the effect of boosting our living standards because of that massive increase in our exports. Conservative Members, and I hope other hon. Members, greatly welcome the DTI's work to sponsor our export efforts.
A combined NAFTA and European Union single market could provide a gigantic marketplace, which would offer further benefits to our country and our export and employment prospects. Given all the benefits that would result, the time is rapidly approaching when we should move in that direction.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on introducing the debate. Trade underlies everything in politics, so this is possibly one of the most important debates that we will have in the House for a number of months.
I should like to address the subject from the point of view not of a politician—the details of the trade arrangements have already been described—but of someone who built up her own business. I dealt in the international marketplace, because 60 per cent. of my turnover was exported to the far east, the United States and north America and I had agents distributing goods and services in Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the West Indies and many other countries.
I should like first to deal with some of the boring old bogeys that have been raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I understand that he is a politician, but I do not know whether he has ever done very much in international trade. His speech was like a re-run of a Nostradamus prediction about the earth falling to pieces in the year dot, dot, dot.

Mr. Spring: Did my hon. Friend notice a certain vibration in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Rotherham was speaking?

Mrs. Gorman: Yes, the earth did move.
The hon. Member for Rotherham raised the old bogey of world capitalism and suggested that there was a gigantic conspiracy against the individual. What total rubbish. People who do business around the world rely on other people as customers. They are there to provide the goods and services that people want, and the more open the market, the more opportunities there are, particularly for poorer people to get their hands on the food, goods and manufactured products that they can afford.
One of the great glories of the old British Commonwealth was our access to cheap food supplies, which fed our population who were then engaged largely in manufacturing industry. That supply helped to improve the population's health, their standard of living and, eventually, the economy of the country. That trade was not one way; in return, we supplied those Commonwealth countries with infrastructure—railways, roads, drains and telecommunications—

Mr. MacShane: And government.

Mrs. Gorman: Yes, absolutely right, even good government services. We are very good at running

countries. It would help a lot of countries if we marketed that skill as a service. We kept better order in many parts of the globe, when we were running things, than many countries are able to do now. I even remember a taxi driver in Zimbabwe—

Mr. MacShane: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman: No, I will not. That taxi driver wished that the British were back there, helping to run the country, so that he could get on with being a taxi driver instead of worrying all the time that the local mafia would haul him in for some alleged political misconduct.
Another bogey that comes up all the time in such debates is cheap labour. We always hear about the slitty-eyed foreigners who are going to make and sell products, and undermine our market. So deeply is that prejudice imbued in our society that we even hear such comments from members of the royal family.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady must not refer to the royal family.

Mrs. Gorman: I accept that rebuke, and I withdraw that remark.
There is some idea that foreigners offer cheap labour, which, in turn, undermines our jobs. I must inform hon. Members that the cheapest labour in the world is that of the United States, because it is the most heavily capitalised labour. An individual working for a telecommunications system in the United States or on a machine is backed up by huge investment. That labour is made productive by that level of investment. It is simply not true that a Chinese worker is more productive in terms of the value of the goods and services he produces than a United States worker. American workers are the best paid in the world, and I wish to goodness that we could scupper the oft-repeated argument about cheap labour.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said that people in the far east are manufacturing goods for export to us. If those goods are of high quality and our consumers can buy them more cheaply than other products on the market, our consumers have more money left in their pockets to buy other goods and services. That will include high-quality products produced in the British market, such as videos, pop music and goodness knows what else.
All such services provide jobs for people. McDonald's is as important a business in our economy as someone making pieces of machinery, up to his elbows in grease, in some boring old factory from 9 to 5. We should not discriminate between jobs as though some are good and others are bad. Jobs provide people not only with an income but with their sense of self-respect.
We should emulate the example of NAFTA, which has been operating for just a year, and which represents an effort to reduce barriers between countries, not least because, as our admirable Library tells me, its administrative costs appear to be negligible. Compare that with our own European Union, where the administrative costs of the common agricultural policy account for almost 50 per cent. of its budget. That money does not go to farmers. That is ludicrously expensive. What about other administrative costs?
Furthermore, we have locked ourselves into an international cartel, because the European Community is virtually a closed shop. It wants to stop people from bringing their goods into the Community because it wants


to protect its markets, the farmers of France and Germany and continental manufacturers. It is not interested in inviting products from which we, as citizens and consumers within the European Union, could benefit.
We should do all that we can to encourage our Government to establish arrangements to help our country to be linked with the admirable experiment of NAFTA. I recently read a good speech by Henry Kissinger, who pointed out the natural ties between our country and north America and Canada. No one who has lived through the fishing dispute that is going on between us and the Spanish within the European Union will doubt the closeness of the ties between us and the Canadian people.
Our country should exploit and develop that tie. Our best trading advantage, for which the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Greeks and all the rest of them would give their eye-teeth, is our language. I assure the hon. Member for Rotherham that people all over the far east, who still use English as their second language, have a natural trust and affection for our markets, particularly for banking their money and for taking out their insurance.

Mr. MacShane: What about Barings?

Mrs. Gorman: They have a great respect for our high-quality skills in engineering and the other services that we provide. It is not true that our country relies on people making widgets and gadgets to sell. The great strength and advantage of our economy is in invisibles—the capital accounts. Companies rooted in Britain with overseas subsidiaries remit profits back to this country—for example, Mobil, Shell, ICI and other big corporations.
We should not seek to enclose ourselves within a number of rather old-fashioned, diminishing economies—the European Community—but should open our market to other countries. We should welcome all opportunities to establish links with them so that we can take advantage of the sensible provisions that they have made to lowers tariffs and barriers.
As a British exporter, I spent the best part of 20 years trying to crack the German and French markets with the products that I manufactured. They always have ways of setting up obstacles, one way or another. However, taking one's goods and services to the new and developing markets is an absolute doddle. They are anxious for one's goods, as long as they are not competing with domestic ones—that sometimes makes it difficult, but it is part of being a tradesperson. One goes to markets where one can sell for the best price; one goes to markets where one can buy at the cheapest price. That is what trade is about.
We should welcome the initiative, we should welcome my hon. Friend's intention to pursue that line, I hope, and we should do all that we can to make our Government realise that, instead of locking ourselves into little old Europe, with its old-fashioned ways, we should get out of that, open our markets and do business throughout the world.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). She knows the esteem in which I hold her.
When I entered the House, the Speaker at the time said that I would go far on short speeches. I have not gone that far, but I have noticed that this morning there have been

several short speeches that were well made, well presented and a tribute to the House and to the debate that the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) initiated.
The hon. Member for Billericay mentioned the NAFTA agreement, as did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring). They will be pleased to know, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will be, because he mentioned it, that there are side agreements to that agreement. One is concerned with the environment, whereby countries are liable to fines and sanctions if there is a repeated pattern of not enforcing environment laws. There is also a liability to penalties for non-enforcement of child labour laws, minimum wage laws and health and safety laws. That will also please my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
The NAFTA agreement, although it is only a year old, as the hon. Member for Billericay said, has about 15 years to run. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds linked the initiation of the NAFTA agreement with the fact that there was a sudden run on short-term credit: $85,000 million flowed into Mexico on a short-term basis and flowed out again, creating a monetary crisis. It is a matter of conjecture whether that was linked to the agreement, but it is a long-term agreement and, in my opinion, it will bring benefits to Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Surely the key is that NAFTA is picking up some of the bad habits of the European Union. Having got a common market going, it is trying to set itself up with a single market and a single currency. That is the real problem with NAFTA.

Mr. Bell: I was proposing to refer later to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and to his book "The Challenge of the East". I look forward to reading it, as I am sure will the Minister, like all the voluminous books that we get about trade, including that by Sir Jimmy Goldsmith.
It is not clear whether the Americans, Canadians and Mexicans see any mirror image of the European Union. Later, I shall briefly mention the various trade blocs that exist, of which the trade bloc that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned is but an example.
The hon. Member for Faversham began his speech with a reference to the President of the Board of Trade. Naturally, we are all disappointed that the latter is not here today—possibly, as the hon. Gentleman hinted, because he may be preparing for Government. That would not surprise us.
There is a lovely quote from Lewis Carroll—we love these little debates because we can get Voltaire in and Victor Hugo and even Longfellow. I remember the lines from Lewis Carroll: "I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. I wish, I wish he'd go away." Perhaps next week at this time the present Prime Minister will mutter those words as he enters the House to take part in what might be his last Question Time. Anyone who writes a book called "Where There's a Will", arguing for Government intervention, will have my vote any time.
The hon. Member for Faversham referred to an idea whose time has come, which was a phrase from Victor Hugo. That idea is quite old. Douglas Jay was a Member of the House and described his experiences in his autobiography entitled "Change and Fortune". He set up a parliamentary group in the late 1960s, continuing into the 1970s, as a study group to provide an alternative to


the European Economic Community, to which the hon. Member for Billericay would be well attached. That group was so successful in terms of debate and theory that it continued throughout the 1970s.
Returning to the argument of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, the world has been moving towards several trading blocs. There are the European Union, which we all know about, the North American Free Trade Area, which was mentioned, the APEC summit last November—the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, involving all the nation states of Asia and the Pacific rim—the Association of South-East Asian Nations and the Uruguay round, which the hon. Member for Faversham mentioned.
It was significant that, when Douglas Jay presented to the House his concept of a free trade area, it was a concept relating to industrial goods. The hon. Member for Billericay mentioned that. She said that the world has moved on in the so-called globalised economy—whether or not it is a globalised capitalist economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said—and is now a world of industrial goods and services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned Barings from a sedentary position during the speech of the hon. Member for Billericay. We mention Barings simply on the ground that there was a bank which went down to Singapore taking used notes in suitcases, metaphorically, and invested it on the Singapore stock exchange or the Singapore foreign exchange market. It did not come to the north-east of England. It did not say, "Here is £800 million for industrial investment; invest that and give me a return on the investment." It used the money for services—for derivatives—and it was a clear loss to the country. We therefore recognise that services have an important role to play, and we welcome that.
The President of the Board of Trade rightly likes to vaunt the fact that our exports are up—that we are exporting more today than we have done. His latest press release speaks of the exports in the month of March, which achieved a record for total values, reaching new manufacturing export volumes.
We must not forget the other side of the coin. We continue to be in deficit in our trade and we continue to have an imbalanced economy. The deficit on our trade for the month of March—which the President of the Board of Trade did not mention—was £500 million. During the first quarter, the visible deficit has decreased from £3 billion to £2 billion so, although we are right to vaunt our exports, and to say that in the world community of trade, in which we take in one other's washing, we take in more of the other side's washing than we do of our own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned an aspect that is worth mentioning—the social dimension of trade. Opposition Members accept the opinion of the hon. Member for Faversham that trade should be sustainable and free.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South mentioned managed trade. Opposition Members do believe in a managed, sustainable trade, recognising the value of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and of a rule-based system. However, we believe that developing countries can benefit from better working conditions, providing them with respect, dignity and an appropriate base on which to build a decent standard of living.
We, as a future Labour Government—let us gaze into the crystal ball beyond next week—have no intention of seeking to remove the legitimate trading advantages of developing countries, including their lower labour costs, and we do not intend to impose standards that are out of line with each country's stage of development. Nevertheless, we believe in a broad spectrum of human rights throughout the world and we believe in seeking to establish, through the World Trade Organisation, the basic rights for people in work that every country should be expected to achieve. We believe that those rights include freedom from forced labour and the right of workers to form their own independent trade unions if they choose.
As to a world trade area that encompasses the United States, Canada, Mexico and possibly the European Union, I think that we must be careful not to take too big a step. I know that the hon. Member for Billericay and I do not necessarily agree about all aspects of the European Union. Those of us who have visited the continental countries and who have seen their trade and services and their efforts to combine economic efficiency with social justice—President Chirac of France has just increased the minimum wage and has a policy for the long-term unemployed—appreciate that it is better to develop the Union than to push the metaphorical boat towards the Atlantic seaboard of the United States. I do not want that to distract us from developing all of our trade opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham used a phrase of Nye Bevan's in referring to the "fierce eagle of the United States". The United States takes an aggressive approach to trade policy and it takes a similar stance in relation to world financial services through the WTO and trade with Japan. In the context of the globalised economy, we must seek to strengthen the trade links that we already have with the European Union and with the rest of the world. Tonight, the President of the Board of Trade and I shall attend a function to discuss Latin American trade. I think that it would be better to view world trade in services and manufacturing as a whole rather than move towards a new free trade area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): Before I reply to this excellent debate, I must clarify one point. The last time one of my colleagues stood before the fair bosom of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), he was launching a leadership bid. I assure the House that that is not my intention this afternoon—although in one part of her speech my hon. Friend cried, "We want jobs," which may have been a pre-emptive strike.
She referred also to "little old Europe". I remind my hon. Friend that the European Union of 370 million people may be little by her standards, but it is quite substantial to the rest of us. It has a gross national product of $7,200 billion, and that is also pretty substantial by any standards. Even if we were to denigrate the Union, I must inform my hon. Friend that the United States Under-Secretary for International Trade, Mr. Garten, has commented that the European Union's projected growth rate of 3 per cent. in 1995 will translate into a one-year market size increase of $210 billion. He likened that to finding a new market the size of Taiwan.
That shows how important it is that we get our domestic market right; we must ensure that it is competitive, open and flourishing. Our domestic market is not the United


Kingdom: it is the European Union. British manufacturers understand that and they take the European Union very seriously.

Mrs. Gorman: I do not want my hon. Friend to think for one moment that I intend to lend my physical attributes to any bid that he may make for the Conservative party leadership. Europe constitutes 10 per cent. of the world's population—which means that the other 90 per cent. are elsewhere for us to do business with—and it has only 15 per cent. of the world's gross domestic product. That is what I mean when I say that looking only towards Europe is a small way of viewing the world; we should look to the rest of the globe.

Mr. Taylor: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's latter point. The European Union is the home market for British industry and it provides a strong base from which to attack the much more interesting risk-reward markets of the far east, for example. However, we cannot do that without first accepting that our home market and our strong home base is the European Union.
The debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir. R. Moate) is an excellent example of how we can pick up issues and discuss them in this place. The contributions of my hon. Friends and Labour Members have been very constructive indeed. In winding up for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred to the President of the Board of Trade. I assure him that at this very moment the President of the Board of Trade is delivering a speech about trade barrier strategy to an American audience in London, and is therefore behaving excellently in the conduct of British government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham made a passing reference to the social aspects of trade. I caution him on that point. No one in the British Government supports forced child labour anywhere in the world. We can stop the use of child labour by opening up free trade with countries, thus increasing their standards of living and lessening their dependence on child labour. That is one of the reasons why I share the fervour of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in opposing trade and labour issues in the World Trade Organisation, because they are a cloak for protectionism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham said that he would like to see more zeal in respect of free trade. I have only a few minutes in which to display the full zeal with which I would like to encourage free and open trade around the world. However, I assure him that my fellow Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers and I are anxiously looking for opportunities to break down barriers to international trade and to take the lead in the international community in so doing.
Only a week or two ago, I attended the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development conference in Paris where I had individual bilateral talks with Mr. Kantor of the United States and Mr. Hashimoto of Japan—I castigated both of them, which made me extremely popular. Tonight at midnight, Washington time, we shall find out whether what I believe to be the hugely misguided American action will proceed.
That is not to say that the market in Japan cannot be opened up. Without going into detail, it would be unwise to make bilateral efforts at this pitch, particularly as the World Trade Organisation has a very effective disputes

procedure. We have invested a lot of confidence in the World Trade Organisation and we do not wish it to be bypassed by unilateral action by the United States or any other country. I hope that there will be a last-minute settlement of that dispute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham mentioned many important issues, and I shall pick up one essential point. Although it may be possible to have a transatlantic free trade area in the long term, we must be very careful about the phraseology in the short term. According to the present World Trade Organisation terminology, an "area" would encompass all trade, including agriculture and textiles—areas where we would create problems rather than find solutions.
That is why Government spokesmen have made several speeches—my hon. Friend mentioned the Foreign Secretary's speech in Chicago; he might have mentioned my speech the previous day in London, but I accept that—in which we have made it very clear that we are trying to engage the United States and Canada in talks in order to create pathfinding roles and remove some of the non-trade barriers that have obstructed trade across the Atlantic.
As a telecommunications Minister, I am well aware of some of the difficulties that may be created in the telecommunications field and in the talks which continue the Uruguay round and the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks, which will be completed in a year. America is a key player in those talks, and it is also a key player in the talks which are due to conclude this week about financial services in the GATT round. I think that Europe and the United States should try to find solutions which are then applicable to the World Trade Organisation. That seems to be the right way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) mentioned roles such as procurement, technical standards, accelerated tariff cuts,, subsidies, intellectual property, rules of origin and regulatory reform. They are substantial agenda items through which we can build bridges across the Atlantic. There is no doubt that the European Union must develop a close trading relationship with the United States and Canada—and Mexico in the context of the North American Free Trade Area. That relationship is crucial and we must work at it.
European Union-United States visible trade in 1994 totalled £140 billion, so our Community partners, with ourselves, have a vital market stake in north America. Germany's share of trade with the USA is larger than ours, so we have further work to do, but we are the largest investor in the United States and one of the largest trading nations in the world. We export per capita more than the USA and Japan combined, so our trading links across the Atlantic are of crucial interest. We must try to give them a framework, which we could call the pathfinding system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) and other hon. Members said, trade is one element in global understanding. Our crucial link with the Americans is the need to engage them continuously in Europe. The Americans have a propensity to look inwards—much more so than the European Union.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is time to move on to the next debate.

Belling Pension Fund

1 pm

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad of the opportunity to raise an issue that has been of considerable concern to me for some time—one that I have raised in the Chamber, in written questions and in correspondence with the Minister who is to reply. I have a substantial file on the case, and many of my constituents stand to lose a great deal of money.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, kindly advised me that one aspect to which I wanted to refer is sub judice, so I will respect that advice and tread carefully. I had a quick rethink in preparing for this speech, so I hope that you will not have to call me to order.
Many of my constituents stand to lose money that they have rightly earned from pension contributions. As a trustee of two pension funds before entering the House, I have always believed that such a fund, whether it be a parliamentary scheme, the Belling scheme or any other, belongs to its members—part of deferred earnings that are taken into account in the overall employment package and terms and conditions. It is not only sad but wrong if employees do not receive the pension they expect.
Earlier this week, the Radio 4 programme "Money Box" presented in a sensible and balanced way the issues that I want to raise. If the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security did not hear that broadcast, I will be pleased to send him a transcript. In this debate, I want to stress the importance of preventing another Belling fiasco, ensuring that other workers do not encounter similar problems, and ensuring a fair deal for Belling pension fund members.
As the Pensions Bill is likely to reach Report stage and Third Reading next week or the week after, the Government have a final chance to address the issues involved in the Bellings case and to tighten up that Bill. The Goode report published in September 1993 was followed by a White Paper that formed the basis of the Pensions Bill, but it does not provide the protection we want. If the Minister could put his hand on his heart and say that the Bill will, with 100 per cent. certainty, prevent another Belling fiasco, I would be glad. In fact, he cannot give such a guarantee.
There are three ways in which the Government could tighten up the Pensions Bill. One is to ensure that pension funds have at least two employee-nominated trustees, as the Bill provides. However, another clause provides that, in certain circumstances, that requirement can be circumvented if an existing method of appointing trustees exists or is proposed. That is not acceptable. We must insist on two employee-nominated trustees.
Secondly, the regulator needs more power and teeth—all too often lacking in legislation. Thirdly, transactions between a pension fund and the parent company must be tightly controlled. The Bill addresses loans, but in the Belling case, one strange transaction was considered not a loan but an investment. If the Belling trustees and directors could call such a transaction an investment, I am not convinced that the Pensions Bill will prevent something similar happening in future.
Belling came to Burnley in the 1950s. It was one of the new industries that replaced cotton and mining, on which we had been so dependent. Burnley welcomed the company with open arms. It was a nationally known

name—a well-respected family firm. Later, the company operated under the name Compound Engineering. Suddenly, on 29 May 1992, the company hit financial difficulties and went into receivership. I remember that day well. It was the last day of the spring bank holiday recess. When I returned from holiday, I learned that an employer of importance in my constituency was in serious difficulties.
That development has created problems for three classes of Belling pension fund members. When the scheme started to be wound up on 12 February 1993, existing pensioners continued to receive their pensions in full. A question arises regarding future increases—whether they will be 3 per cent., 5 per cent., or according to the retail price index—because of certain agreements made prior to the winding up. The point is, the more that existing pensioners receive, the less money remains for deferred pensioners with an interest in the same scheme. A conflict of interest could arise between different categories of pensioners.
The second category of pensioners are those who have reached retirement age since 12 February 1993 and have become eligible for a pension. The question arises of how much money is available for them. At present, they are receiving a reduced pension on account—nothing like the full amount that they expected.
Thirdly, there are employees who expect to receive a pension when they reach retirement at 60 or 65. Within those categories, one must consider also the guaranteed minimum pension, the scheme's change of status in 1988 and pensions acquired by additional voluntary contributions. The issue is far from straightforward. Some members believe that they will receive only the guaranteed pension, which may be a mere 30 per cent. of their previous expectations. Others think that the figure will be 60 per cent. There are different good and worst case forecasts of the money that can be recovered, and of the range of payments that employees will ultimately receive.
In the Minister's most recent letter to me, dated 20 June, he stated:
I appreciate that both you and Mr. Wignall"—
Mr. Wignall is a representative of the local work force and is pursuing the issue with the strong support of the former workers on that site—
feel strongly about the position of Belling Pension Fund members. I have already set out in my letter of 10 March, reasons why we feel it would not be appropriate for the Government to extend the exceptional assistance provided to the Maxwell Pension Fund members to the Belling Pension Fund members.
In his letter of 10 March, the Minister stated:
The sheer scale of the Maxwell crisis and the large number of parties involved, including four different sets of scheme trustees, justified the exceptional action taken by the Government in establishing the Maxwell Pensions Unit and the Maxwell Pensioners Trust and it is not a model we consider suitable for general application.
I say to the Minister, in all honesty and with considerable conviction, that I would not be concerned whether my pension came from the Maxwell pension fund or the Belling pension fund, the parliamentary fund, the Philips pension fund or the British Coal pension fund. I have the same right to expect my full pension wherever it comes from.
It is of no concern to me to be told that other schemes are much bigger, and that, because of that and media involvement and Robert Maxwell, their pensioners should


receive more favourable treatment. If I stand to lose 30 to 70 per cent. of my pension, the loss is the same to me as it would be to anybody else. I am entitled to the same treatment as anybody else.
At no stage have the Government described the exceptional assistance. Some people think that it is a waiving of the payment that should be made by the existing pension fund to restore the guaranteed minimum pension level. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to outline the exceptional assistance and state the cost to the Government of helping to ensure that the Maxwell people get fair treatment. I stress that I am not in any way opposed to the Maxwell people getting the assistance that they want. I merely say that people in a similar position, whether with Belling or in any other scheme, should get the same help.
I should like to refer to the second Select Committee report of 1991–92 on the operation of the pension fund. Paragraph 4.10.11 states:
Belling went into receivership in May 1992. It was discovered that in May 1991, £3.5 million had been withdrawn from the pension scheme and paid to a solicitor to secure a refinancing arrangement for the company. The refinancing did not take place, and the money paid is irrecoverable.
As the report is available in the House, I shall not go into the detail of exactly what happened. I have already mentioned the Minister's restriction because of the sub judice rule.
The £3.5 million referred to in the report should be $3.5 million, which translates to £2.1 million. The matter is being pursued. The Law Society made some compensation and issued a press statement, but I shall go no further along that line, because I accept that court cases are pending on the matter. In that context, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall relieve the pressure on you right away.
The Select Committee report also states:
In November 1991, the trustees of the pension scheme purchased one of the company's subsidiaries for £5.5 million, which at the time represented 20 per cent. of the scheme's assets. A significant part of the subsidiary's trade was with the parent company, and a substantial loss is expected on the sale of the investment.
That purchase raises questions about whether Belling was solvent at the time of the purchase and whether the sale should have been declared illegal and null and void. That explains why I say that the Department of Trade and Industry should be concerned about what happened. Should the directors, especially Richard Belling and Michael Stewart, have been allowed to be directors?
I shall give one or two other examples of what happened in the past. In 1989 Michael Stewart, who, as I say, was one of the directors, took a loan of £1 million from the fund without members' knowledge or any declaration in the annual accounts. In September 1990, the same director took a £3 million loan from the fund, without security or legal approval and without the knowledge of the actuary, the third trustee or the members.
The solicitors Barlow, Lyde and Gilbert and counsel told him unequivocally that he was not empowered to take such money from the fund. The directors were repeatedly advised that, to say the least, some of their actions were highly questionable. Time after time they were warned of the dangers.
When I put a question to the Prime Minister on the matter, I said that fraud and abuse was involved in the total concept of the Belling pension fund. That is why the

fund is not able to deliver what the pensioners rightly expect. I accept that the directors may have been misguided and believed that they would be able to save the company, but that judgment is generous in the extreme, because I do not think that that was the case.
Clearly, there have been major problems. The money that people were entitled to expect to be in the fund was not there, and people will not receive the pensions and the security to which they are entitled. I do not know what the liquidator's report to the Department of Trade and Industry said, and I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to speak about that, because such reports are not published. People need to know at what stage it was known that the Belling group faced major difficulties and that money from the pension fund was being used to try to keep the group afloat.
For the people employed by the company, those details should have come to light much earlier. Why did not reports by the auditors or by chartered accountants or others ring loud and clear alarm bells and set off flashing lights showing that something was going wrong?
We must be absolutely certain that people in pension funds are sure that, when they retire, they will get the pensions to which they are entitled. I welcome the broad concept of the Pensions Bill, because I know it will bring about tremendous improvements and go a long way towards meeting problems. However, I do not think that it goes far enough. If the Minister was in the same position as the Belling pensioners, he would not be concerned whether his pension was paid from that fund or from the Maxwell fund. Those pensioners want a fair deal, and in their retirement they want what they are entitled to.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for raising the matter of the members of the Belling pension fund. To his great credit, the hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his support in the House, and in correspondence and elsewhere, for the members of that scheme. He asked whether I had heard the "Money Box" programme on the Belling scheme. I did hear it, and I found it extremely interesting. It obviously raises matters of considerable concern.
It must be the case that, the more interest that is taken in pension schemes in future, the more secure they will become. Backing up that security will be the measures in the Pensions Bill, which left Committee yesterday and to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman is eager to see that all possible gaps in legislation are plugged, so that problems with pension funds do not occur in future. He said that he hopes that, in the years ahead—I think I quote him correctly—no hon. Member should need to tell the House that a pension fund is not able to honour its commitments to its pensioners. In an imperfect world, such a hope can never be completely achievable. The hon. Gentleman asked for 100 per cent. certainty that such a hope could be realised, but that is not possible, as I think, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Gentleman would accept. The measures that we are introducing in the Pensions Bill should greatly improve the security of occupational pension schemes.
I intend to speak in detail about some of those measures, but, first, I should deal with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which he has made before, that the help that has been given to Maxwell pension scheme members should be extended to the Belling scheme and to other schemes in difficulties.
I should make it plain that it is the Government's view that the Maxwell pension crisis was exceptional. The hon. Gentleman refers to my letters to him, in which I have referred to the scale of the Maxwell crisis.
The large number of parties involved—more than 30,000 Maxwell pension scheme members were under threat—and the complexity of the problems faced—about 50 major legal disputes took place—justified the exceptional action taken at the time to help to unravel and resolve the problems. Because of those exceptional factors, it needed a different mechanism from the ordinary legal procedures that are available to, and which are being pursued by, the independent trustee of the Belling pension scheme.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that the independent trustee who is pursuing those procedures must, on every occasion, weigh up whether the amount that is recoverable will exceed the recovery cost, because that cost and the legal remedies are extremely expensive?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Of course I accept that the independent trustee will have to bear closely in mind the recovery cost in relation to matters outstanding, but, in this case, the question is whether there should be a different procedure from the legal procedures that are and should be available to pension schemes to recover assets that should not have been taken from them. That is not the case in the Belling scheme, whereas it was in the Maxwell scheme, because of the scale of the crisis and the complexity of the problems involved.
There is another difference. It is also plain that, although the Government were as eager as anyone that the Maxwell pension crisis should be resolved, they did not feel that they should assume responsibilities that rightly belonged to others. That was also the view of the Select Committee on Social Security, and of the Secretary of State for Social Security's adviser on Maxwell matters, who in March this year successfully concluded a major settlement worth more than £275 million to Maxwell schemes. As chairman of the Maxwell Pensioners Trust, Lord Cuckney, as he now deservedly is, raised some £6 million for the support of Maxwell pensioners.
Both those were remarkable achievements. It must be worth noting that the complexities of the March settlement were such that it took the parties involved the best part of an hour each simply to sign the complex series of agreements that were needed.
We have obviously learnt some helpful and useful lessons from the activities of the Maxwell pensions unit, which was set up to help the parties to resolve their problems. That practical experience has fed into the proposals in the Pensions Bill, not least those on compensation, but we do not consider that the setting up of a specific unit for each specific problem as it arises is a model that should be generally applied.
On the Belling pension scheme, I understand that the independent trustee has settled a number of actions, including one against the Law Society, and is continuing

to pursue various claims to rebuild the fund in full. I understand also that the Belling pension fund has been able to continue to pay pensions from the scheme's own resources. That too is different from the position of individual Maxwell pension schemes, some of which, in the early days of the problem, were without resources to make any pension payments. Of course I hope that the actions being pursued by the independent trustee of the Belling pension fund will bring further recoveries to that fund, to rebuild its assets.
One of the major results of the Maxwell crisis was the setting up of the pension law review committee, which led directly to the Pensions Bill. Many of the Bill's provisions directly deal with concerns that have been expressed about the operation of the Belling pension scheme.
Four major principles underlie that legislation. They deal with equal pension rights for men and women, the equalisation of state pension age, making personal pensions attractive across a broader age range, and, most important for this debate, restoring the security of occupational pension schemes. Obviously, confidence in the security of those schemes was considerably undermined by the Maxwell affair. We intend to restore that confidence by improving that security.
A number of measures would have proved helpful in preventing the difficulties that have been faced by the Belling scheme. The trustees of the Belling scheme were all company appointments. The Pensions Bill provides that scheme members have a right to select at least one third of their scheme trustees. That is a statutory minimum that schemes are free to build on. We have gone further than the recommendation of the Goode committee, by insisting that that requirement should apply even to schemes with fewer than 50 members. Those member-nominated trustees are an important part of the package of security and of pension reform offered by the Bill.
I am in no doubt that the vast majority of employers who sponsor occupational pension schemes, and of the trustees who operate them, do so with great integrity, but the small minority who do not will know that they have a member-nominated trustee looking over their shoulder. All trustees will be backed up by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, to which they can turn if there is any hint of trouble.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was possible to get around that member-nominated trustee requirement, but it is not. Many members may be happy with their existing pension scheme arrangements, and in those cases, employers may propose to keep those arrangements or to adopt an alternative, but, before they do, they must first gain the approval of active and pensioner members under the statutory consultation procedure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that procedure will leave members in no doubt of their rights and of the options that are open to them.
It would not be right for the Government to upset arrangements with which everyone is contented, but, for the first time, scheme members will be able to insist that schemes should have at least some trustees whose perspective differs from that of the employer, or that there should be other arrangements that are equally acceptable to members.
In March 1992, legislation came into effect that limited to 5 per cent. the amount that schemes could invest in the sponsoring company. We intend to retain


that limit. In addition, the Pensions Bill provides for sanctions to be taken against trustees who breach the self-investment limit. For serious cases, sanctions include, on conviction on indictment, an unlimited fine, up to two years' imprisonment, or both.
I have referred briefly to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. An important part of the Bill is the creation of that new regulatory body. We intend that that authority should oversee pension schemes and enforce compliance with statutory provisions. The authority will be able to act quickly on reports and complaints about the management of schemes. It will have powers to conduct wide-ranging investigations, including on-site inspections, irrespective of whether a complaint or report has been made.
The Bill will place scheme actuaries and auditors under a statutory duty to report irregularities discovered to the authority. That will enable it to receive information about schemes with problems at a relatively early stage. That means that it will be able to act far more quickly and incisively than might otherwise have been the case.
The Government firmly believe that the establishment of the regulatory authority, taken together with the comprehensive range of provisions aimed at improving scheme administration and security, will represent a formidable barrier against dishonest or negligent administration of pension schemes.
I have described in some detail some of the measures that we are introducing in the Pensions Bill to provide a strengthened legal and regulatory framework for occupational pension schemes. Those measures will improve the security of members' pensions, but we are also introducing a compensation scheme as a longstop, because, in spite of the robust safeguards in the Bill, there can be no absolute guarantees against a determined criminal.
Because of the limited time available, the measures that I have mentioned today are only a sample of those introduced by the Bill to enhance the security of scheme members. We have great sympathy for the position of Belling pensioners, and I pay tribute to those, including the hon. Gentleman, who are working so hard on their behalf. We can, should and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Roofing Contract (Plymouth Dockyard)

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration will reply to my observations today. I recognise that the issues I wish to raise, particularly those which relate to English Heritage, fall at the door of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, but my hon. Friend's Department is a key funder of such projects. My hon. Friend will be relieved, as am I, that, unlike previous exchanges in the House, we are not discussing fishing today.
The title of this debate may appear a little dour and unexciting. It has not emptied the Dining Rooms, but, to my constituency, it is one of the more relevant debates of the year. This is only my second Adjournment debate, and it is my second on a key constituency matter. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns and to outline the case of Camborne Natural Slate, a company in my constituency, and the re-roofing contract for the Royal William dockyard in Plymouth.
The essence of my case is that Camborne Natural Slate had been asked to tender for a contract, was told that it had been awarded it, and entered into production. At the last minute, the company was informed that English Heritage had intervened and had given the contract, I believe without good justification, to a Welsh company.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Eternit, which is a major supplier of building materials in my constituency, is involved in that project, and is supplying some of the material? It is concerned about the point made by my hon. Friend, and, like me, wishes to offer whole-hearted support for the campaign that he is undertaking. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this week of all weeks, we have had rather too much interference from some people from Wales?

Mr. Coe: I am, as ever, deeply grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I am grateful for his support and for the support of Eternit in his constituency, which has written to me and to the owners of Camborne Natural Slate pledging its support. On my hon. Friend's second point, I have never really thought of myself as St. George in this place.
The supply of slate from Camborne to the Plymouth development corporation is not only vital for the company but has a significant consequence for the mining and process industries in Cornwall. Camborne Natural Slate has demonstrated that, despite the difficulties resulting from the near-disappearance of tin mining in Cornwall, it is possible to retain the Duchy's long history of mining by importing raw materials for value-added processing in the county. That is all the more important given the phoenix-like rise in the fortunes of South Crofty, Cornwall's last working mine, which is also in my constituency.
The case is straightforward. Camborne Natural Slate is a successful finished-slate producing company. In July 1994, its chairman, Dr. Chandra Durve, received a letter from the Philip Desmonde Partnership, writing on behalf of the Plymouth development corporation, asking whether Camborne Natural Slate would like to tender for the contract for the re-roofing of the Royal William dockyard.
The letter states that the natural slate roofing—Brazilian natural slate—which is light grey in colour and which is used by Camborne Natural Slate

has been selected as suitable amongst a range of alternatives".
Naturally, the company welcomed that approach, and put together its bid.
I have seen a further letter sent to Camborne Natural Slate in September 1994, by Roger Monson on behalf of the development director of the Plymouth development corporation. It said that the corporation had decided
in consultation with English Heritage … to erect five in-situ slate samples for inspection and further inspection".
The letter also specified the date by which the corporation should receive all the samples. All this suggests that, at that stage, English Heritage was satisfied with Camborne Natural Slate.
That is when we arrive at the first contradiction. English Heritage subsequently claimed that it had decided against using Camborne Natural Slate in June 1994. I have a copy of the aforementioned letter, which was dated 26 September 1994. That is odd.
Camborne Natural Slate legally tendered for the contract. It took eight months to draw up the tender list and, although in-depth discussions took place between the Plymouth development corporation and English Heritage about size, colour, texture, quality and all other aspects of the slates on offer, no doubt was ever expressed about the Camborne slate. Indeed, I understand that one source of Welsh slate was rejected by English Heritage at the outset, because of its colour.
Following the submission, in March 1995 Camborne Natural Slate was invited to meet the Plymouth development corporation consultants. It was at that meeting that it was advised that it would be awarded the contract subject to terms. Given the nature of the correspondence and subsequent communications, and due to the nature, scale and timing of the required supply, the company took the not unnatural step of commencing production. It had, after all, been assured that it would be awarded the contract and it wanted to provide a first-rate service. Its decision was based on firm assurances, and it was unaware that it was taking any risks.
English Heritage has recently stated that it does not feel that Camborne Natural Slate's product is suitable for the re-roofing contract. That pronouncement goes against the advice and knowledge of all local experts. English Heritage claims that the slate is the wrong colour and has too smooth a texture. Throughout the bidding process, Camborne Natural Slate made it clear that it was capable of making slates of whatever texture was required, and, indeed, has done so on many other notable historic restorations.
Historically, all slate quarried in the south-west was pale in colour, with green and grey as the predominant shades. Unlike Welsh slate, it would not have been black or shades of black.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Welsh slate is not black. One type is blue, and the other is purple. While I am on my feet, I feel that I should interfere on behalf of Welsh slate producers. The hon. Gentleman is making a case for importing slate from Brazil, and is arguing against the best product in the world, which is mined in Wales. Is he, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, saying, "Don't buy anything from Wales, even if it is mined locally—import instead"? That is preposterous.

Mr. Coe: I am happy to respond to that, and I shall deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman later in


my observations. The hon. Gentleman represents an area that is not dissimilar in nature to my constituency. He will know that, for those areas to prosper and for their economic foundations to be vibrant, value-added is a key part of any inward investment.
It is absurd to suggest that a slate comes out of the ground and is suddenly nailed to a roof. The hon. Gentleman knows that an awful lot of work goes into it first. Camborne Natural Slate is producing a product 70 per cent. of whose input is of a domestic nature, and 70 per cent. of the income raised remains in the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Harris: May I assure my hon. Friend that he has the total and absolute backing of the whole of west Cornwall for his case, especially in the light of the disgraceful way in which the Welsh Development Agency is doing its utmost to poach jobs and firms from Cornwall. If we lose the order, the economy of the south-west and west Cornwall will be hit again; and goodness knows, it needs all the help it can get.

Mr. Coe: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, who has raised the issue of the processing of regional selective assistance and the various grants. We have both been to see Ministers to discuss the matter, and, as the Member of Parliament for a constituency adjoining that of my hon. Friend, I recognise the profound importance of the outcome to the economy of the south-west.

Mr. David Jamieson: Surely the issue is not whether Welsh or Cornish slate should be used. The fact is that English Heritage accepted that the six tenders were all appropriate for the job, and Camborne Natural Slate then put in the best tender—better than the Welsh tender. Surely the decision should now be based purely on price.

Mr. Coe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall deal with it in my final observations.
It is important to establish the fact that the darker unweathered slates appear at depth. As the Cornish miners of yesteryear had neither the technology nor the need to dig deep, all the slate used was light in colour, akin to the Camborne slates, which are light grey. Studies have found that those are ideally suited to match the traditional grey weathered slates still seen on historic buildings. For reasons of colour and historical authenticity, many local builders deliberately use Camborne slates to patch old roofs.
I have seen a letter from Richard Edwards, senior lecturer at the world-renowned Camborne school of mines in my constituency, which says that the Camborne slates fit in perfectly with the slates of the south-west peninsula. In other words, they are the nearest we can get to the original slates used on the dockyard roof.
I can now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), because English Heritage's argument that Camborne slates are Brazilian is erroneous. Only the rock is imported. Not only is that raw rock closest in nature to the old Cornish rock, but the slates are hand-finished in Cornwall by Cornish hands—not in Brazil and not in Wales. It is the Cornish heritage, skill and culture that enable the slates to be produced to such a high standard in the county.
English Heritage's objections are even more absurd, because when there was a final test in which sample slates were put on the bakehouse roof of the Royal William dockyard, English Heritage approved the Camborne slate and deemed it more suitable than the Spanish or Welsh samples. From the outset, English Heritage favoured a large slate, because all the evidence in the historical records of the yard show that large slates were used. The Welsh cannot produce those, but Camborne can.
Perhaps the Minister will explain why English Heritage has acted in such a contradictory fashion. Camborne Natural Slate has been severely misled. Indeed, it seems from the evidence that English Heritage also misled Plymouth development corporation, probably causing it unwittingly to delude the company.

Mr. Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend mentions Plymouth development corporation, and he will be aware that the project is hugely significant for Plymouth, especially the development of the Royal William dockyard. It is being funded to the tune of £45 million by a Government Department, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd for English Heritage, another organisation funded by the Government, to intervene in such an incompetent manner and mess up the contract? For many of us, that underlines the fact that English Heritage has become too powerful and overbearing, and needs the Government to clip its wings.

Mr. Coe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Only five weeks ago, I enjoyed a morning going around the yard on foot and on the water. Like most people with any knowledge of Plymouth and the south-west, I recognise that the project must be handled at all times with great regard to historical authenticity, and that the public purse is to the fore. Like my hon. Friend, I do not think it unreasonable that, when a publicly funded body is primarily engaged in regenerating an area, contracts should be awarded to locally based companies where possible.
The irrefutable fact of the matter remains. English Heritage was consulted throughout the year-long selection process, and never at any stage expressed an objection to Camborne slates. As I have already explained, the publicly stated reasons for the rejection of the bid—colour, texture, and the need for the slates to be in keeping with the whole—have been shown to be hollow.
There is no evidence that slates from the favoured Welsh quarry are appropriate in colour. The size and colour of the Camborne slates is far closer to the original. In 1828, the specification by the architect Rennie demanded rag slates, which are typically 24 in long or longer, and of various widths. Moreover, the historical evidence suggests that local Cornish slate was used. The slates on which English Heritage insists are smaller and are blue-black rather than grey-green. For the record, they are also significantly more expensive.
I know that Camborne slate is still favoured by the Plymouth development corporation. I received a letter on 30 May from Sir Robert Gerken, its chairman, telling me that the board had decided to accede to English Heritage's insistence that Welsh slate be used, but he added:
you will be aware that the corporation had been trying, over a considerable period, to get agreement to the Camborne Natural Slate Company's Brazilian import for the job but this was not acceptable to English Heritage where the decision was made at the highest level, namely the Commissioners".


The Minister can draw his own conclusions on the background to that letter.
The quality of the Camborne slate has never been questioned. The objections now raised by English Heritage are purely aesthetic. Because the use of Welsh slate will be enforced, an additional £250,000 will be added to the costs of a project funded by the taxpayer.
I do not believe that English Heritage made a definitive judgment, let alone a rational judgment, last June or at any time since. Otherwise, logic tells me that the corporation would not have proceeded with the tender, and certainly would not, following the tender, have specified Camborne slate on the applications. I have no doubt that, had the Plymouth development corporation been aware of any reasons why Camborne slate should not have been used, it would have made them clear from the beginning, and would not have allowed tendering from the company to go through to the final contractual stages. Camborne slate has satisfied all the requirements of the tender. It is the preferred choice, and has the full support of the architects. The slates are competitively priced, and the company, just as importantly, is a south-western business.
It does not seem unreasonable that a publicly funded body should, where possible, allocate contracts to firms in the region of the venture. That is what the Plymouth development corporation has attempted to do. If we wish to preserve our traditional industries into the next century, support must be granted to companies such as Camborne Natural Slate. It has, by its own efforts and research, found a way in which to compete effectively with overseas slate producers while retaining 70 per cent. of the revenue in the United Kingdom. That should be applauded, not penalised.
The tender process now seems to have been less than transparent, and I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at it again. I know that the final decision rests with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the matter, especially the concerns that I have raised today.
Frankly, I do not believe that the process was carried out to the high standards that are expected of the public sector. This is one of the biggest heritage refurbishments ever embarked on in the south-west. I am sorry to say that it has left an extremely bad taste in the mouths of many of my constituents.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): It may reassure the House if I say first that I am here not because there has been an unexpectedly early reshuffle, but because my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of National Heritage are detained on urgent business. It would not be right, either, if I suggested that an admirable compromise might lie in using good Yorkshire stone mined in the Yorkshire dales in my constituency. I am here to explain, not to act as a mediator.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) for raising the issue; he has expressed clearly the depths of his concern and the

concerns of his constituents. I shall explain the background to the involvement of the Department of National Heritage in the case.
As my hon. Friend has said, the buildings at the Royal William yard were built between 1825 and 1833 to the design of John Rennie, the engineer to the Admiralty. I have visited them as part of my regular visits to look at our regeneration programmes in the south-west.
The yard includes an exceptional and extensive range of buildings which have survived the years very much in their original form. The yard is a rare example of its kind and it is of great national importance, which is why the buildings were scheduled as monuments in 1968. That means that their preservation must be fully considered when proposals are made for development or other work that might damage the buildings or their appearance.
Under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, any such proposal must be the subject of an application for scheduled monument consent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. When he considers such an application, he has to seek the professional advice of English Heritage. The developers themselves may, of course, ask for informal advice from English Heritage on the acceptability of their proposals before they make an application to the Department of National Heritage, to smooth the passage of the application. That is what happened in this case.
The buildings are the subject of a refurbishment programme being carried out by the Plymouth development corporation. The proposals to replace the present roof coverings form part of that work. The roof is almost always a dominant feature of a building, and the retention or replication of its structure, shape, pitch and ornamentation is important.
Discussions between the development corporation and English Heritage about identifying the right roofing materials began in June last year, some months before the Department received the first of the corporation's applications for scheduled monument consent. Throughout the discussions, English Heritage was willing to consider a range of options for the material. As part of the process, it was willing to look at samples from potential suppliers, including Camborne Natural Slate Ltd. The process was not intended to give approval to that use. If it had been, English Heritage could have been deemed to have endorsed all the samples.
I understand that, between November 1994 and January 1995, the development corporation independently sought tenders for the supply of slates without asking English Heritage to endorse the slates proposed or to agree the specification on which tenders were invited. The corporation received three tenders for the work, one of which—the lowest—was from Camborne Natural Slate which, as my hon. Friend has stated, proposed to use rock mined in Brazil and finished in Cornwall. Following the evaluation of the tenders, the development corporation indicated in a number of its applications for scheduled monument consent that it wished to use Camborne slates.
It is at this point that some confusion appears to have arisen, and I am not absolutely certain that I shall be able to dispel it. My hon. Friend has cited statements made by the development corporation or its consultants that may have given Camborne Natural Slate the impression that English Heritage had in some way endorsed the use of its


product. English Heritage, however, maintains categorically that at no time did it give any such endorsement.
It maintains that it consistently made it clear to the corporation that the Camborne slates were unacceptable for use on the buildings by virtue of their colour—which English Heritage considers is too green in tone—and their texture, which is too smooth. It was and is English Heritage's professional opinion that the use of Camborne slates would have a visual effect quite out of keeping with the character of this collection of buildings.
It seems that the lines of communication between the development corporation and English Heritage were not as effective as they might have been. As a result, the impressions gained by the company were not as precise as they should have been.

Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: I will not give way, because I have very little time left, and I want to reply to my hon. Friend.
Camborne Natural Slate gained the impression that its product was acceptable and that it would be awarded the contract, so it entered into production. But there was no contract, and, in the absence of English Heritage's endorsement of its product and the scheduled monument consent for the works granted by the Secretary of State, there could not be a guarantee that its product would be used.
Having subsequently examined the products available from other potential contractors who had submitted tenders, as well as sample panels and further information provided by Camborne Natural Slate, English Heritage concluded that it could only recommend the use of slates of Welsh origin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] As a simple Yorkshireman, I do not wish to enter an argument about the colour of Welsh slates. It says here, however, that Welsh slates are greyer and rougher than the Camborne product, and are considered by English Heritage to be more in keeping with the slates that must have been used originally.
My hon. Friend has said that he believes that such slates were not used originally. I cannot arbitrate on this. English Heritage is supposed to be in a position to arbitrate, and it maintains that the possibilities are limited to slates that are Welsh and Cornish in origin. What my hon. Friend has said about the suitability of Camborne slates is based on the assumption that Cornish slates were used originally. It is just as likely that Welsh slates formed the original roof covering. In fact, only Welsh slates are now available in the quantity required.
I understand that Camborne Natural Slate maintains that local slates, not Welsh slates, were the most likely to have been used, and that its product most closely resembles the appearance of local slates. English Heritage rejects that view, as it considers the Camborne product to be greener in tone and smoother in texture than Delabole or other local slate.

Mr. Coe: My hon. Friend has done little to dispel any of the concerns that I and hon. Members on both sides have raised. Will he give me an assurance that either he or a Minister from the Department of National Heritage will look again at this process? Frankly, this company in my constituency has been led into a bizarre process.

Mr. Curry: Leaving my brief entirely behind me, it seems that there has been confusion. I do not know enough about the case to say whether it arose entirely because people got their lines muddled, but my inclination would be to say that that is likely. I do not want to start making suggestions about improper activity or influence. I do not think that such suggestions are true.
There is clearly a case to answer about the way in which the three organisations concerned communicated with each other. As a result, impressions have been given which have led to work that may not have been justified. The company, through the mouth of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, has put its case that it was justified in taking the action it did.
I undertake to examine my hon. Friend's point, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will give it his particular attention, and that we will try to respond in detail to the points that have been made. I hope that that will give at least some reassurance to my hon. Friend.

Sunday Observance (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I listened with great interest to the debate on the colours, sizes and textures of slates. When one debates an Act of Parliament that goes as far back as 1695, was introduced by a Parliament that has been extinct for a couple of centuries and is no longer operative in any part of Ireland except that which is under the jurisdiction of this Parliament, one might be tempted to wonder not only about the texture of the slates but about whether some were slightly loose, if not removed altogether.
I am talking about the retention of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695 which was enacted by a Government of Ireland who, as we all know, no longer exist. The Act has been around for three centuries and has caused problems even to this very day. It is impossible to describe the Act except in terms of its own vernacular and terminology. It is informative to realise exactly what is the basis of that law in relation to the operation of district councils. Those were the terms of my application for the debate, which I am pleased to have been able to obtain.
All forms of sport are, in effect, banned on a Sunday in the north of Ireland. For the reason envisaged at the time, one can rely only on the wording of the legislation:
by reason of tumultuous and disorderly meetings, which have been, and frequently are used on the Lord's-day, commonly called Sunday, under pretence of hurling, commoning, football-playing, cudgels, wrestling, or other sports".
Forgive me for not being able to say what commoning is. I could venture one or two suggestions, but they would probably be wrong. I venture to suggest that I might know what cudgelling is. In the time that I have lived in Northern Ireland, I have never seen it practised—certainly not as a sport.
I have seen hurling played and have played it myself, but hurling as it is now known was invented in about the 1850s. Of course, in the Act it could be a generic term that takes in golf, hockey, what is now known as hurling and anything that involves the malevolent action of hitting a little ball—whatever it is filled with—along the ground with some form of stick. I assume that that is the hurling spoken of. It is banned within the north of Ireland. It is illegal by the Act of a Parliament that no longer exists. The vestiges of the Act were repealed in the rest of Ireland as late as 1962 but, unfortunately, they are still with us.
It is informative to look at the consequences of the sort of malevolent, disorderly, tumultuous meetings that would take place if we were allowed to kick a ball along the road or knock a round sphere with a stick. The Act states:
no person or persons whatsoever shall play, use, or exercise any hurling, commoning, football-playing, cudgels, wrestling, or any other games, pastimes, or sports on the Lord's-day, or any part thereof
is guilty.
That means that the Government, who are represented here by the Under-Secretary with responsibility for the environment—the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-east (Mr. Moss)—are by definition guilty of breaking the law when they give financial assistance to leisure centres in the north of Ireland. In the case of Craigavon council, the centres are not open because of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) of 1695. It also means that every district council in the north of Ireland that opens

its leisure centres is in breach of the law. Central and local government are, in effect, breaking the law in their operations in Northern Ireland. We must add to that the number of people, myself included, who, although no longer involved in hurling, are involved in an activity that I described as part of the generic term of hurling, the tumultuous game of golf on a Sunday. Tumultuous and disorderly golf never is; interesting it can be; good it seldom is—but, under the terms of the legislation, it is illegal.
Of course, one could go on for ever drawing conclusions from the legislation. Every country in the world has its anachronisms. Every country has pieces of legislation that lie there and do not matter. Every country in the world has elements in its constitution or corpus of law that may be as well left lying in the corner rather than risk raising the atavisms that surround removing them. The problem is that this anachronism is being used now.
I quote directly from a letter from the clerk of Craigavon council dated 24 May 1995 sent to each member of the council. It is headed "Sunday Opening of Leisure Centres" and states:
It was brought to my attention on Monday evening that the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695 were still operative and had never been amended or repealed.
Under Section 3 of the 1695 Act, copy attached, it is unlawful for anyone to take part in any Sport on a Sunday.
I sought the advice of the Borough Solicitor who has verbally confirmed yesterday evening that the Borough Council would be in contravention of the law if it opened the Leisure Centres next Sunday, 28 May, as planned. I am awaiting his written advice and will forward a copy to each Member immediately it is received.
In order to safeguard the council's interests I have instructed the Director of Leisure Services not to open the three Leisure Centres until Council has had an opportunity to consider the legal advice.
As a result, young, middle-aged and elderly people—all sorts of people—in the Craigavon area are denied the use of their leisure centres. What takes place in these leisure centres? Badminton, five-a-side football and indoor bowls. They are hardly of a tumultuous nature, yet that archaic, outdated legislation is quoted by the clerk of the district council when he overrules the decision of his council to open those leisure centres. He did that in the name of legislation that dates back to 1695 and is still operative.
Of course, there have been changes to the law in relation to cinemas, child adoption and the removal of penalties. However, essentially the Sunday observance legislation still applies, and it is illegal, as the clerk of the council says, to take part on a Sunday in the activities that I have described.

Mr. David Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as time is short. I want to clarify one point. He referred to the actions of the clerk of Craigavon council in my constituency. Is he suggesting that the clerk acted wrongly in following the legislation which is undoubtedly in force? Is he suggesting that it would have been right for the clerk to disregard the legislation once it had been brought to his attention?

Mr. Mallon: I make no judgment whatsoever about the clerk of Craigavon council—far be it from me to do so. However, to respond in terms of the hon. Gentleman's question, if the clerk in question were right, all other clerks operating leisure centres in the north of Ireland would be wrong under the law. Not only are district councils acting against the law, but so are the central


Government and anyone who switches on a television set on a Sunday. If BBC Northern Ireland decides to show a football match on a Sunday or if UTV decides to beam in the rugby World cup final or semi-final from South Africa, they are most surely breaking the law as well. This incredible situation has been allowed to continue for a long time.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be in a position to say that the Government recognise that the legislation is an anachronism and nonsense and that it has absolutely no place in the world in which we live. I hope that he will recognise that it has been used down the years for atavistic reasons by people who want to cater for their own specific entrenched point of view rather than the general view that would be adopted by the vast majority of people in the north of Ireland. I hope that that is what the Under-Secretary will tell me. I hope that he does not fudge the issue and make excuses about whether the core of the legislation can be tackled.
Of course, if the legislation affected golf clubs, it would be dealt with, as it would if it affected the racing fraternity of which, I confess, I am a member. I hope that the Government will introduce legislation to enable me to go to a race meeting legally on a Sunday and, when I get there, to place a bet legally. I hope that, when the race is over, I can legally collect my money.
The current legislation, however, affects people in every sector of the north of Ireland, whatever their leisure activity. It is crucial for the young person in a built-up area who has no motor car and whose only facilities are in a leisure centre. Parents know their children are safe and supervised by professional assistants in leisure centres. It is those young people who suffer from the nonsense of the 1695 Act. I hope that the Under-Secretary will refer to them when, as I believe he must, he tells me shortly that the Act is to be repealed in its entirety as it applies to the north of Ireland.
Sooner or later, our legislation must show the plurality of the people in the north of Ireland. Those who want to have a strict Sunday observance regime are entitled to do so, and I would defend their right to it. Those who wish to participate in sport, by active involvement or by watching it, also have their rights.
However, there are two overriding priorities in a society such as the north of Ireland. First, no legislation—especially not that which goes back to 1695—should be such that it can be used or trawled by a small section of the community to promote and further its own entrenched views at the expense of others and, most usually, at the expense of those least able to help themselves. That must surely be a priority for the Minister.
Secondly, we are trying to develop a society in the north of Ireland in which people adopt the attitude that, although something may be different from what we were brought up to believe, we can nevertheless, despite the deep divisions, recognise the views and, indeed, the prejudices of others.
I make no pejorative comments about Craigavon council or its clerk, but I do criticise the 1695 Act. It is unbelievable that such nonsense is still on the statute book. Above all, I would be censorious of a Government who kept that anachronism in place because of their reluctance to take on some of the dyed-in-the-wool attitudes that they know exist in the north of Ireland. Other people suffer for those attitudes, and it is time that those attitudes were challenged.
I suggest that those attitudes are challenged now, because no one reading the legislation could justify it in any shape, form or sense. The time is now right to deal with it once and for all, so that it does not crop up as it cropped up in Craigavon. We do not know what we shall be starting, but we do know that, if the clerk of Craigavon council is right according to the legal advice, all the other district councils in the north of Ireland are wrong. If the clerk of the council is right in Craigavon, the Government and others are breaking the law through their subventions to leisure centres and other recreational and sporting activities.
The choice is whether we have a pluralistic society and are prepared to work for it or whether we are to be hidebound by such nonsense as the Sunday Observance (Ireland) Act 1695, which was passed by a Parliament that is now extinct, which was created three centuries ago and which has helped to perpetuate the entrenched views of one small section of the community. The Government have an obligation to remove any source of authority for this type of legislation and the abuse of it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on his success in securing this debate. I should like to start by putting him out of his misery and uncertainty by telling him that I believe the word "commoning" refers to marbles. He spoke at some length about the plurality of the society in Northern Ireland, and I should have thought that playing marbles was a tradition on both sides of northern Irish society.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the effect of the Sunday observance regulations on district councils. It is, indeed, a topic that has a long history in Northern Ireland. Debate on legislative restrictions on activities that may be undertaken on Sundays is not unique to Northern Ireland. Recent changes in the law elsewhere in the United Kingdom prompted the Government to publish two consultation papers earlier this year to seek local opinion on Sunday-related issues.
One consultation paper was on Sunday racing, betting and sport. It sought comments on possible changes to the law in Northern Ireland: first, to allow Sunday racing on horse and greyhound tracks and to regularise the legal position of other sports—I emphasise the words "other sports"—already held on Sundays; secondly, to allow betting on Sundays on horse and greyhound tracks and in licensed bookmaking offices; and, thirdly, to provide employment protection measures for workers in the betting industry.
The second consultation paper, on Sunday trading and other changes to the Northern Ireland shops law, sought comments on possible changes to the law in Northern Ireland: first, to allow shops to trade in all goods on Sundays, while restricting most larger shops to six hours trading; secondly, to provide employment protection measures for employees who work on Sundays; and, thirdly, to amend or repeal other provisions in the Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, now considered to be out of date. The proposals are very much in line with recent legislation for England and Wales. District councils have a particular interest in the Sunday trading paper because they are responsible for enforcing the existing shops law—the 1946 Act.
My ministerial colleagues and I are now considering the responses received to both consultation exercises, and announcements on the way forward will be made in due course.
If it is decided to relax the current legislative restrictions on these matters, some action may be necessary to repeal, amend or disapply specific provisions of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695. There are already precedents on the statute book for disapplication or restriction of the 1695 Act. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh mentioned two of them, but I shall go through them again so that we are clear.
The first amendment was the Cinemas (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which allowed for the Sunday opening of cinemas, to which I think the hon. Gentleman referred. The second was the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, to which I think he also referred. The 1946 Act amended substantial portions of the 1695 Act, and allowed the operation of shops on Sundays in accordance with the 1946 Act. The final amendment was the Fisheries Amendment (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, which again made changes to the 1695 Act. The precedent is that the Act has been changed on four occasions.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the fact that the Minister has given way. I understand that the Government have been considering the responses. Is it possible for us to know how many responses were received and how they balanced out? The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was talking about leisure centres, and I understand that market forces compel some councils to close them because they are not used on Sundays.

Mr. Moss: Taking the second point first, that is a valid argument. That has, indeed, been the case in some council leisure centres, but I think that the majority would keep them open, given the choice. On the first question, I believe that we had more than 1,000 responses against any changes to Sunday trading and more than 1,000 for a change, so the consultation process brought an even match on either side of the argument.
I turn now to the leisure and sports centres operated by district councils in Northern Ireland. In the 1940s and 1950s there was a debate about whether swings, roundabouts, slides and so forth in local parks should be chained to prevent children playing on them on a Sunday. Then came the provision by local councils of swimming pools, followed some time later by leisure centres, when the whole debate about Sunday opening came to the fore again; indeed, it is still going on, albeit to a more limited extent.
The pros and cons of Sunday opening have been hotly debated in council chambers, with councillors fervently putting across their points of view. I would fully accept that a great many of the arguments against Sunday opening were based entirely on an individual councillor's personal convictions. In other instances, councillors believed that there was nothing wrong with people engaging in leisure activities on Sundays. In a great many other cases, however, I suspect that the decision to open or close the facilities had more to do with party politics than with councillors' personal convictions about the matter.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way. Lest we do not arrive at the opportunity, will the Minister confirm that, under the 1695 Act, those councils that operate leisure facilities on Sundays are, in the words of the clerk of Craigavon council, "breaking the law"? If that is so, can he give us an assurance that he will totally remove that legislation from the statute book?

Mr. Moss: The 1695 Act covers a number of different Departments in the Northern Ireland Office, and I could not instigate any policy from my Department to change the whole Act, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will repeal the entire Act. I am, however, in consultation with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), to seek a way forward with his Department of Education, to find out how we can amend the Act so that sports that take place on Sundays can do so legally.
I have sought proper legal advice on whether leisure centres are breaking the law by opening on a Sunday, and I am advised that they could technically be in breach of the 1695 Act. I am also told that the chances of a successful prosecution, particularly under sections 1 or 3 of the Act, are considered remote.

Mr. Trimble: As the Minister has introduced the subject of the legal advice that he has received, would he be so good as to make that advice available to others, especially to councils that are anxious to remain within the law? As the Minister must appreciate, there is either a breach of the law or there is not. It is meaningless to say that there is a technical breach of the law. It is important, therefore, that all councils should be given the benefit of the advice that the Minister has received. Speaking for Craigavon council, I am sure that it does not wish to do anything unlawful.

Mr. Moss: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I agree that the councils are perhaps in an invidious position, in not knowing where they stand in relation to the law. I am sure that their legal opinion would be the same as that given to me—there is a very remote chance of any prosecution as a result of the 1695 Act. I will agree, however, to forward that legal advice to all councils, not just Craigavon.
Whatever views anyone holds on the question of Sunday observance, I believe that we must recognise that times change. People's attitudes today on any number of issues are not the same as they were 30 or 40 years ago. If that were not the case, we would still be labouring under the 300-year-old Act as regards Sunday activities, which has recently been reported in the press. I am referring, of course, to the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695. To emphasise the point, perhaps I should quote a few of its provisions.
One passage states:
no person or persons whatsoever shall publickly cry, shew forth, or expose to sale any wares, merchandizes, fruit, herbs, goods or chattels whatsoever upon the Lord's-day…upon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit the same goods so cried, or shewed forth".
We recognise that the language of that Act is out of date and, if I am to proceed from the two consultation documents into legislation, we will have to take on board carefully the requirements of necessary amendments to that Act. I give that undertaking to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—
It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

BELL'S BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1995 Home Energy Conservation Act 1995
Proceeds of Crime Act 1995
Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995
Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995
Land Registers (Scotland) Act 1995
Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995
Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act 1995
Health Authorities Act 1995
Jobseekers Act 1995
Malvern Hills Act 1995
Team and Group Ministries Measure 1995

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Scottish Homes

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland the board of Scottish Homes will next meet to discuss the transfer of Scottish Homes property. [29367]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): The board of Scottish Homes meets regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the transfer of its housing stock. It will next meet on 17 July 1995.

Mr. Martin: May I inform the Secretary of State that Scottish Homes intends to invite every housing association in my area to tender for the transfer of its property, including an organisation called Gemini which Scottish Homes itself created? The twist in the story is that Mr. Mackinlay intends to get an opinion poll company to find out which housing association is the most popular, and the most popular housing association will then go on to the ballot paper. Does the Secretary of State agree that on that basis his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not get on to any ballot paper, as he is not doing too well in the opinion polls?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his close interest in matters affecting the Conservative party. With regard to the Scottish Homes proposals, the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a considerable advantage in seeking diversification in housing tenure in Scotland, which has not only created more choice and alternatives for occupants but has released substantial resources to be reinvested in housing in Scotland.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most tenants will welcome the transfer, but that no tenant in Monklands would welcome the transfer of any home from Scottish Homes to Monklands district council, which is corrupt, incompetent, dishonest and racist?

Mr. Lang: I can reassure my hon. Friend that, so far as the transfer of housing is concerned, 25 succesful ballots have taken place, involving 13,000 homes, in which the tenants have voted by a clear majority to transfer.

Mr. McAllion: Will Scottish Homes properties be transferred in the future under a scheme similar to the one announced yesterday for England and Wales which gives grant assistance to housing association tenants to purchase their own homes? If so, will the Secretary of State explain how that will benefit the two thirds of housing association tenants in Scotland who have state benefit as their principal source of income and the 75 per cent. of tenants who need housing benefit to help pay housing association rents?
Is it not time that the Government listened to the advice given to them yesterday by an archbishop to stop loading the dice in favour of the one form of housing tenure that they prefer and to get back to meeting the real housing need in this country by building housing at affordable rents for the hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens

who are either homeless or trapped on housing waiting lists and for whom the right to buy is about as relevant as the right to stay at the Ritz hotel in London?

Mr. Lang: That reveals the old, atavistic attitudes of the Labour party to housing. There is a huge demand to buy council houses in Scotland. It is a right that we gave to council tenants. We fought the measure through against the sustained opposition of the Labour party—opposition which continues in some district councils. Private ownership in Scotland has now risen to approaching 60 per cent. Some 300,000 tenants have been given the opportunity by a Conservative Government to buy their homes. Clearly, the Labour party is out of touch on housing.

Respite Care

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received anent the provision of respite care for those citizens with learning disabilities and their families. [29368]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am not aware of any recent representations regarding the provision of respite care specifically for people with learning disabilities.

Dr. Godman: Will carers and those for whom they care ever get a fair crack of the whip from this Government? Is it likely that the Minister and his equally recalcitrant officials will ever implement the recommendations contained in the report commissioned by the Scottish Office, "Patchwork Quilt"? Is it not necessary for carers and those for whom they care that the recommendations in the report be implemented as soon as possible?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We believe that priority should be given to carers to enable vulnerable people, including those with learning disabilities, to live in the community. We have provided an additional £2.1 million to develop respite services. The guidance that has been issued highlights several objectives, including that respite care must be needs led, of high quality, accessible, strategically planned, flexible and affordable. If the hon. Gentleman believes that we are not following any of the recommendations, perhaps he will kindly let me know where he thinks that we are falling down. We insist on giving the matter high priority and shall continue to do so.

Common Agricultural Policy Advisory Group

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he was consulted on the membership of the Government's CAP advisory group; and if he agreed to the membership. [29369]

Mr. Lang: The CAP advisory group is not a Government body and has no formal standing within Government. It was created by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to advise him personally. In those circumstances, there was no reason for me to comment on the membership of the group.

Mr. Welsh: Given that the CAP advisory group will, in the Government's own words, have a significant impact on the development of policy and new thinking on the issue, why does the group not include even one person who is actively involved in Scottish agriculture? And how


does the Secretary of State explain why the Scottish Office has been represented at only four of the 50 Council of Ministers meetings in Europe, in a minor role, and never on agriculture? Is that not a disgraceful way to treat the Scottish agricultural industry?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the concept of Scotland as a member of the United Kingdom, deriving benefits from its membership of the United Kingdom both in the European Community and at home. Scottish Office officials are fully involved in the CAP advisory group and fully aware of what is going on. They advise Scottish Office Ministers as appropriate. The group has no responsibilities for policy-making, which remains entirely a matter for Ministers.

Housing Transfers

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of the draft contracts and associated agreements seeking to transfer the ownership of all local authority housing stock from Berwickshire district council to Berwickshire housing association; and if he will make a statement. [29372]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that the agreement to transfer Berwickshire district council's housing stock is currently the subject of negotiations between the council and Berwickshire housing association. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that one of Berwickshire district council's principal justifications for the transfer was that it would deny future generations of housing association tenants access to the right to purchase their properties, thereby preserving the district council's stock in the social rented sector? Given that the change in Government policy announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment at the Dispatch Box yesterday potentially frustrates that aim, will the Minister now publish the completed draft contracts that are about to be considered and allow a proper period of public consultation and debate before the Secretary of State for Scotland begins to consider authorising the transfer? Otherwise, the implications for prospective tenants of Berwickshire housing association properties cannot properly be assessed.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are currently working out with Scottish Homes a scheme to enable housing association tenants to buy their homes on a voluntary basis. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations will be consulted in due course and it will be for Berwickshire housing association to consider whether it wishes to participate in such a scheme.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to make the documents available in the Library. As Scottish Office Ministers are not a party to the contract, it is not appropriate for them to place the documents in the Library; it is for Berwickshire district council and Berwickshire housing association to consider whether to make the terms of the transfer agreement publicly available.

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer that I have received from the Minister, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Under-age Drinking

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to curb the consumption of alcohol by those under the age of 18 years. [29373]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): The Government strengthened the existing law against under-age drinking by the introduction, in 1990, of a statutory embargo on unsupervised sales by those under 18 in off-licence or wholesale premises. Changes have been made to the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to facilitate the prosecution of offences involving the sale of alcohol from off-sales to under-age persons. Much of the work of the Health Education Board for Scotland focuses on the young drinker and several initiatives, bearing particularly on young people, are under way or planned during 1995–96.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. While it is an offence for young people to buy alcohol, for others to buy it for them, and for youngsters to procure it in any way, it is not an offence for young people to drink alcohol. Should not my hon. Friend deal with that problem?

Mr. Kynoch: I am aware of the significant representations that my hon. Friend has made on this issue on numerous occasions. He is to be commended for treating this subject so seriously. He is well aware of our view, which is that byelaws can prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Those have been successfully introduced in parts of Dundee, Motherwell and East Kilbride, but we have no plans to introduce a general offence focusing on drinking by young people under the age of 18 in public places.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister is trying to suggest that the Government have been assisting in dealing with that problem. The pilot schemes in Dundee, Motherwell and Ettrick and Lauderdale took place from 1990 to 1993. Subsequently, Dundee district council asked the Secretary of State to allow it to promote byelaws banning the drinking of alcohol throughout the city, but the Scottish Office refused to support it. The council then put specific proposals to allow it to introduce byelaws that would ban youths under the age of 18 from drinking alcohol anywhere in the city, and the Scottish Office still refuses to support it. When will Ministers get off their backsides and do something?

Mr. Kynoch: We believe that byelaws can be introduced to prevent drinking in public places where nuisance is a problem. We recognise that alcohol misuse is one of the eight priority areas for action identified in the 1991 national policy statement, "Health Education in Scotland". A target has been set to achieve by the year 2000 a reduction of more than 20 per cent. over 1986 levels in the proportion of population who exceed the recommended sensible limits—the hon. Gentleman may disagree with these—of 21 units per week for men and 14 units per week for women. We believe that education is the best way forward. Although byelaws can be introduced, it is up to local district councils to decide whether they are appropriate.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) have raised this matter on a number of occasions because of the experience in Tayside, to which the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) referred, that, when


under-age drinkers are banned from one area, they simply go somewhere else. That problem must be resolved. The answers that I received previously were that the Government were studying the matter and keeping it under constant review. Can my hon. Friend assure me that is exactly what is happening?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right to say that, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), he has made significant representations on the subject. The Government are always willing to listen to argument, but at present we believe that the impracticality of introducing new legislation overcomes the situation and that the current byelaws are capable of dealing with public nuisance. We are, of course, always willing to discuss the issue and to hear further representation.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the problem of under-age drinking is an extremely complicated one? Current policy is to prosecute the individual or shop owner who supplies alcohol illegally to people who are under age. What consideration has been given to changing the policy so as to prosecute those under age who knowingly seek to buy alcohol for themselves?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is a difficulty and, indeed, we have no current proposals on that.

GP Fundholding

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner practices in Grampian are fundholders; what proportion of the total this represents; and what is the average proportion of Scottish practices which are fundholders. [29376]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are currently 38 practices in Grampian in the GP fundholding scheme out of a total of 89. Approximately 43 per cent. of the practices in Grampian are GP fundholders, covering 62 per cent. of the board's population. There are currently 158 fundholding practices in Scotland out of a total of 1,078. Approximately 15 per cent. of the practices in Scotland are GP fundholders covering 23 per cent. of the population.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he take it from me that a number of the practices in my constituency have become fundholders in the past two years much against their will, because they felt that they were under pressure to do to so in order to benefit their patients? What assurances can he give to medical practitioners in Huntly, who have recently been told that the minor surgical operations that they carry out at the Jubilee hospital in Huntly will not be funded in future by the health board, and that if they do not wish to perform those operations they should refer such cases to consultants, which will increase waiting lists and costs in the health service? Is that a sensible way to develop local GP surgical practices?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The health board is simply applying the rules which relate separately to the provision of minor surgery within GP practices by any GP and to certain specific arrangements which apply to GP fundholders on the use of their funds to provide certain surgical procedures. The regulations allow for a

limited list of procedures where, subject to strict arrangements, the fundholders can use their fund to facilitate the provision of secondary services within the practice where a particular GP has expertise.
I hope that the GPs involved will continue to work with the health boards and that there will be no question of their withdrawing co-operation, which would be unfortunate. I hope that they will provide a full range of services to their patients in the area. The arrangements are voluntary and it is up to the Gps involved to decide on the extent of their participation in minor surgical work. GP fundholding offers enormous advantages, which are perceived throughout Scotland.

Drug Abuse

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the resources available in Scotland to deal with drug abuse and its effects. [29377]

Mr. Lang: Responding to drug misuse consumes a substantial amount of resources across a range of services—health, the police, social work, education, the prison service and other statutory and non-statutory agencies. Public expenditure exceeds £40 million every year.

Mr. Watson: The Secretary of State did not say whether he thought that that expenditure was effective. The catalogue of deaths of young people through drug misuse continues to increase, which suggests that it is not.
In an Adjournment debate last week, the Under-Secretary of State told me about operation Eagle, undertaken by Strathclyde police to counter drug abuse, but he did not say that that operation does not represent extra resources for that police force, as it is funded from existing resources.
I accept what the Minister said about the need for a multi-agency approach, but does he accept that young people in Scotland need to be offered some hope? In many cases those involved with drug abuse are those without hope. We do not hear of many trainee chartered accountants or student lawyers dying from drug abuse; rather it is largely those who have nothing to lose. That is the tragedy of Scotland. What hope can the Secretary of State give those young people to get them out of the drug culture?

Mr. Lang: One of the lessons of the extensive studies on those matters carried out by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the drug task force and others is that a simplistic analysis of any kind is probably misleading and dangerous. We all agree that the need for a strategic framework and the interrelation of a range of agencies, using substantial resources, such as I have suggested, and working in a sensible and co-operative way, offer the best way forward. I believe that we have made considerable progress in our approach to these difficult issues, and I hope that we can continue to do so on the basis of agreement across the House.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that resources in that respect should be targeted towards education? Does he agree with the Scottish Select Committee, which said that solvent education should start at primary school, as leaving it until secondary school is often too late?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was one of the important recommendations and progress is being made on it. Drug education packages for use in primary and secondary schools to complement the Drugwise 2 materials have been commissioned and will be available shortly.

Mr. McMaster: The Secretary of State will recall that I met his noble friend the Minister of State several weeks ago to urge him to reschedule the drug Temazepam so that it would be a custodial offence to be found in possession of it without a prescription and so that there would be import and export controls on it. Since then, we have heard rumour after rumour, promise after promise, that something will be done to act on that. When will something be done?

Mr. Lang: The misuse of Temazepam is a matter of deep concern to the Government and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council set out in May the immediate steps being taken to reduce its misuse. That is being done by the imposition of safe custody controls on manufacturers and wholesalers under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and by a proposal to ban the prescription of gel-filled capsules by GPs in the national health service. My right hon. Friend has also confirmed that we are carefully considering the recommendation of the advisory council to reschedule Temazepam under the 1971 Act.

Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Secretary of State looked at the survey reported by Greater Glasgow health board last week, which showed that nearly half of fourth-year pupils in Glasgow had tried drugs? Will he take that into consideration, together with the figures given by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in the debate recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), when he referred to £24 million given to all the health boards in Scotland for drug-related work and £1.4 million given to the urban programme in Glasgow? Does the Secretary of State agree that, although £1.4 million sounds substantial, it is actually only £2 for every man, woman and child in Glasgow, which is not a lot when we consider the huge amount of work that needs to be done and the worry that exists in so many communities about the scale of the problem?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady is right about the £24 million content of the health board budgets in the context of drugs, but I mentioned a figure of £40 million in my original answer as being the resources available throughout a range of programmes. Glasgow has a substantial share of those resources.
The hon. Lady mentioned the urban programme, which has no fewer than 11 specific projects in hand. There is also the Glasgow drug problem service, which is busily engaged in efforts to transfer the activities of injectors to oral substitutes. A great deal of work is going on throughout the range of approaches in Glasgow, and I acknowledge that that is an aspect on which we must continue to focus our attention.

Housing Transfers

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which councils in Scotland are considering transferring or have transferred the ownership of (a) any or (b) all of their housing stock to housing associations; and if he will make a statement. [29378]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since 1989, 27 councils in Scotland have received consents to transfer more than 13,000 houses to the private sector, mainly to housing associations. I will have the names of the authorities concerned printed in the Official Report.
A further three councils—Berwickshire, Wigtown and Nithsdale—are currently considering transferring all their stock to local housing associations.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister confirm that Wigtown district council, in the Secretary of State's constituency, plans to transfer all its council housing stock to a private housing association, whose chairman is chairman of the council housing committee and whose secretary is the council's housing officer, using public money? Is that not the type of corruption that ought to be investigated, if not by Professor Black, certainly by the district auditor?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the councils are independent of the Government. Whatever proposals are made will eventually have to come before the Secretary of State for approval, but the first and most important hurdle is for the tenants themselves to vote. If a majority vote against the proposal, that will kill it stone dead. The advantages for tenants, including those in the 13,000 houses mentioned, include a lower rent path, accelerated investment in their housing and increased scope for tenant involvement in housing management. There has also been a greater benefit for the public sector because it has led to reinvestment in additional social housing. As I have said, the matter will come before the Secretary of State in due course and he will look at it with complete objectivity.
Following is the information:
Councils which, since January 1989, have been granted consents under section 12(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, to transfer housing to the private sector Angus district council Argyll and Bute district council Banff and Buchan district council Clydebank district council Clydesdale district council Cunninghame district council Dumbarton district council Dundee district council East Lothian district council Edinburgh district council Glasgow district council Hamilton district council Inverclyde district council Kilmarnock district council Kirkcaldy district council Monklands district council Motherwell district council Nithsdale district council North East Fife district council Orkney Islands council Perth and Kinross district council Renfrew district council Ross and Cromarty district council Stirling district council Strathkelvin district council Tweeddale district council West Lothian district council.

State of the Economy

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Council to discuss the state of the Scottish economy. [29379]

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish TUC from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy. The next meeting is being planned for July.

Mr. Galloway: I accept that the Minister's own employment prospects depend entirely on the only kind of elections that Conservative Members enjoy


participating in—those in which all the voters are Conservatives—although even in that election the prospects are a little uncertain. Does he agree, however, that the only election to which hundreds of thousands of Scottish people who are unemployed and under-employed—those who are in part-time, temporary, low-paid, low-tech, low industrial jobs—can look forward with any sense of hope is the election which cannot now be long delayed and which will chase the Minister and his motley crew out of office for good?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is playing his usual game of spreading doom and gloom and has totally ignored the most recent unemployment figures, which show a further significant decrease to the lowest rate since February 1980. With regard to long-term unemployment, he may be interested to learn that the number of people who have been unemployed for more than one year decreased by 14 per cent. in the year to April.
As for part-time workers, I repeat the answer that I gave several Question Times ago: a recent survey of people who are employed part-time found that only 14 per cent. wished to be employed full-time and that the remainder worked part-time because that is what they wished to do.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Scottish Trades Union Council is in favour of a statutory minimum wage. Will he ask the council what wage it proposes and why the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) refuses to give a figure?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many Scottish and British businesses would like an answer from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and his colleagues on that. Setting a statutory minimum wage would clearly have significant effects on British industry and would probably increase unemployment levels. For an example, one has only to look at France, where there is a statutory minimum wage of about the same level as the TUC favours and where there are significantly fewer young people in work than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wallace: Given the Government's pursuit of a low-wage, low-skill economy in Scotland, what message of hope does the Minister have for those graduates who will be coming out of Scotland's universities in the next few weeks? What proportion of them does he expect will find jobs in the next two or three months? Given his right hon. Friend's support for one of the candidates in the Conservative party leadership election, who does he believe has the better prospect of being in a job next month—a graduate of a Scottish university or the present Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman, as a good Liberal, may think that that is a good sound bite, and he may well think that he is being helpful, but he neglects to mention the significant successes that we announced recently in relation to inward investment in Scotland, many of which involved improved job prospects for highly qualified people, including graduates. I had the pleasure of announcing the success stories for the year ended March 1995, during which more than 97 inward-investment projects were carried out, creating more than 12,300 new jobs or safeguarding other jobs and resulting in inward

investment of £1.1 billion. That is exceedingly good news for the job prospects of all graduates, and particularly those in Scotland.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree, in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), that he, like me, enjoyed the general elections of 1992, 1987, 1983 and 1979 and will probably enjoy the next general election? Does my hon. Friend agree also that the hon. Member for Hillhead would do better to meet the Engineering Employers Federation, which has found orders up, investment up, optimism up and, at the end of the day, employment up? Would that not be more worth while?

Mr. Kynoch: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend reads the good news, and I join him in welcoming new orders worth £35 million recently announced for British Aerospace in Prestwick for its Jetstream 41 aircraft.

Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister realise that 153 skilled jobs are soon to go from GEC Marconi Avionics in my constituency? Will the Minister lobby the Ministry of Defence in favour of the GEC Venom helicopter, which would create more jobs in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom than the other bids, as well as costing less? Will the Minister prioritise the policy of defence diversification? Will he put pressure on the management of that cash-rich company to accept the modest demands of the work force for work sharing, redeployment, retraining and no compulsory redundancy?

Mr. Kynoch: I will ensure that we continue with policies that make certain that British business, and Scottish business in particular, is competitive. Labour policies, to which an earlier question referred, are clearly bad for Scottish business and Scottish competitiveness. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a minimum wage or the social chapter will help companies in his constituency to win orders, I suggest that he talks to more business men, more thoroughly.

Mr. George Robertson: I fully understand why the junior Minister was asked to answer an important question on the Scottish economy this afternoon—because the Secretary of State for Scotland is spending all his time paddling around in the Westminster bloodbath, leaving open the question of who on earth is running the Scottish Office. Does the Minister not realise how offensive and repellent it is to the people of Scotland, with all the problems that they face today, to see the politicians of the party of government at each others' throats over a Tory premiership that long ago lost any credibility or authority? The people of this country and of Scotland do not want an undignified and unedifying election for a Tory Prime Minister—they want a general election and a new Government as soon as possible.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman made his party political point, but I find it difficult to understand how it addresses the economy of Scotland and the success stories of that economy. As I go around Scotland visiting businesses, I am met with stories of success day in, day out. The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and asked whether we regard questions about the Scottish economy as important. We regard all questions in Scottish Question Time as important. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that we share questions around. I am privileged


to have the opportunity to talk about the good news, as against the hon. Gentleman, who never talks about anything good.

Local Government Finance

Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance. [29381]

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend and I are due to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 24 July, as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.

Mrs. Adams: Does the Minister recall. that, in April, I tabled a number of questions asking the Scottish Office to investigate the alleged misuse of urban aid money? The reply was that it was not the job of the Scottish Office to audit or to investigate that matter. The following week, the Scottish Office sent a letter to all regional and district local authorities telling them that they were now responsible for the auditing and accounting of urban aid money. Will the Minister say who has been responsible for monitoring and auditing urban aid money for the last 20 years?

Mr. Kynoch: I have not seen the details to which the hon. Lady referred, but if she will contact me later with those details, I will look into the matter and provide a full answer.

Dr. Reid: I do not want to break up the hostile atmosphere, but may I say how much we enjoyed the Minister's two recent visits to my constituency, not least because he set the precedent of being the Conservative Minister who turned up to open factories rather than the reverse? I give him credit for some of the finance that the Government have been prepared to put into Motherwell district council. In the midst of the present hysteria, will he have the courage and integrity to reciprocate by recognising the constructive role that has been played by Motherwell district councillors and by councillors in Lanarkshire and throughout Scotland? Their commitment, energy and dedication are given for very little reward and they are a prime example of what Britain could do with more of—a commitment to public service.

Mr. Kynoch: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman was able to turn up on the two occasions when I was in his constituency. Sometimes, when I go to open factories and new investment sites, local Members are unable to turn up and share the good news. He is absolutely right to say that much of that good news has been brought about by a partnership. I single out not just district councils which have been involved but Locate in Scotland and local enterprise companies. The local enterprise company in the hon. Gentleman's area, Lanarkshire development agency, has been remarkably successful. I hope that he will join me in giving it credit as well.

Corruption in Local Government

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding corruption in local government. [29382]

Mr. Lang: From time to time, I receive representations about alleged corrupt practices in local government. Most recently, of course, I received a copy of Professor Black's report on Monklands district council.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. In the light of Professor Black's report of malpractice in Monklands and of the fact that Labour has totally failed to take care of its own affairs and put its house in order, what action will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that at long last people in Monklands will renew their faith in local government?

Mr. Lang: I have carefully considered Professor Black's report. On the basis of its contents, I have concluded that, in principle, there is now a case for initiating a statutory inquiry. It will concentrate on the allegations that the council has failed to comply with its statutory obligation under section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to appoint staff on merit. I will announce further details in due course.

Mrs. Liddell: At long last, the Government have decided to do something. For two years, the Opposition have been calling for an inquiry under section 211. It was my distinguished—

Mr. David Shaw: Labour tried to cover it up.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will control himself and keep his temper because no one in the House wants it.

Mrs. Liddell: It was my distinguished predecessor, the right hon. John Smith, who first called for an inquiry under section 211. I am shocked that the Government have delayed such an inquiry for this length of time. I recall that, shortly after my by-election, the anniversary of which is this week, I met the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) who was then the Minister with responsibility for local government. That was before he fell on his pickaxe. He pointedly refused to institute an inquiry into the activities of Monklands district council. My constituents would expect nothing less from the Secretary of State for Scotland than his resignation. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Liddell: He was elected to look after the interests—

Mr. David Shaw: This is a statement.

Madam Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Lady who, although she has not long been in Parliament, is an experienced politician. I am sure that she will put a question when she has said what she wishes to say.

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. My constituents are unhappy about the extent to which they have been used as a political football in the House. On their behalf, I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland: will he now resign, because he is failing to look after the interests of all the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: Well, I understood that the Labour party wanted me to set up an inquiry under section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I asked the hon. Lady during the by-election, when she said that she had evidence and was going to send it to me, to let me have


it so that I could consider it. That arose from the Labour party's earlier inquiry. I also asked the late John Smith to send me the inquiry; neither she nor he did so. As a result of Professor Black's report, however, we have further information that we have considered carefully and that has led me to the conclusion that I have just announced.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there is nothing terribly unusual about Monklands? Most Labour councils in west Scotland behave exactly in the way that Monklands has behaved. Will he therefore bear in mind the possibility of 211 inquiries into other councils—for example Dumbarton and Renfrew?

Mr. Lang: If my hon. Friend has evidence that he would like to send to me that might justify such a matter, I shall of course consider it. Perhaps one of the things that is different about Monklands district council is that, in February 1994, 81 Labour Members signed an early-day motion
That this House deplores the actions of certain honourable Members in claiming that there has been impropriety of various kinds by elected members of Monklands District Council".
That seemed to be their conclusion after their earlier inquiry. The circumstances now, however, seem to be different.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State not accept that, while no one will take seriously Labour's attempt to abdicate its responsibility for Monklands, there is a question as to why the Secretary of State has taken two years to take the action that he has announced today? Is it the case that it was the policy of past and present Scottish Office Ministers deliberately to allow the Monklands position to fester for political advantage, just as it was the Labour party's policy to try to sweep it under the carpet?

Mr. Lang: That is quite wrong. I have been aware of certain allegations for some time, but I am obliged to consider the position in its statutory context, as I have made repeatedly clear to the House. I am now of the opinion that it is appropriate to initiate an inquiry of the sort that I have announced.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many requests—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We will have one debate at a time in this House.

Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, year after year, there are many requests for inquiries into different local authorities, and that he and his staff can consider only the evidence that they have, before they can make a decision on whether there is adequate evidence? Was it not the absent evidence, especially the evidence collected by the Labour party, that could have brought forward this inquiry if it had been made available?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I repeatedly asked for such evidence to be forwarded to me. However, I now have Professor Black's report to deal with instead.

Mr. George Robertson: Let me first welcome the belated announcement by the Secretary of State that he will now have that statutory inquiry into Monklands district council, for which, as my hon. Friends have said, I, the late John Smith and many others have been calling

for some time. May I regret that it was slipped in here today in the answer to a question, although that is the usual sleekit way that we expect these things to be announced from the Tory party today? Will he not admit, however, that he has now been stung into doing this inquiry, which he should have instructed at least two years ago, by the decisive and determined action taken by the Leader of the Opposition and the Scottish Labour party last week?
While the Secretary of State for Scotland was interested only in scoring party political points about the fears, apprehensions and worries of the people of Monklands, it was left to the Labour party to call for Professor Black's independent inquiry. In contrast to the dilly-dallying of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office, we took clear and decisive action on it within 24 hours. While the Tory party plays at politics, the Labour party takes action.

Mr. Lang: A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman was complaining because I was not answering a question; now he is complaining because I have answered a question. On 4 March 1993, the Labour party's inquiry into Monklands concluded:
The Committee has carried out its remit with integrity and sensitivity and would anticipate that the recommendations form part of a concerted effort to restore credibility and to renew confidence in the local Party in Monklands…There will be a continuing interest from the Scottish Executive to ensure the smooth and effective operation of the Party in Monklands".
That was its view on 4 March 1993. Its view seems to have changed a little since then. It is a great pity that it did not send me the evidence that I have repeatedly asked for in the compilation of that report. If it had, we could have had the inquiry a long time ago.

Taxation

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the total grant of Government expenditure in Scotland was raised by taxation in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available. [293831

Mr. Kynoch: In 1992–93, it is estimated that taxes raised in Scotland—excluding North sea oil revenues—accounted for some 72 per cent. of total general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, in Scotland. Even if all oil revenues were allocated to Scotland in that year, the percentage would increase only to 77 per cent.

Mr. Robertson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, to keep services at their current levels, an independent Scotland would face a budget deficit of anything between £6 billion and £8 billion? Can he confirm that that would mean £6 billion to £8 billion of tax increases or of spending cuts?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The policies of the Scottish National party would cause significant problems for Scotland and for Scottish business. My hon. Friend may have seen in today's newspapers that not only are the nationalist policies damaging for Scotland, but, according to the leader of the Institute of Directors, devolution is also damaging and would force firms out of Scotland.

Mr. Graham: The Minister will be aware that in Inverclyde we recently faced a terrible blow in that one


enterprise zone site is no longer applicable. The folk of Inverclyde are desperate to see a new site on which we can build factories. Will the Minister ensure that some of the money paid into the coffers in taxes by the people of Scotland is put to good use to rectify that problem created by the Government?

Mr. Kynoch: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to all the success stories that we have had throughout Scotland. Enterprise zones are not always the answer to problems. They take a long time to set up and have a limited life. What is important is that we have given sufficient powers to Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise network to work in partnership with local authorities to try to ensure that local businesses thrive and have every chance of expanding.

Mr. Forman: In view of the figures given by my hon. Friend in his original answer, and bearing in mind the unusually high public expenditure per head in Scotland when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, is it not clear to anybody in this Parliament of the United Kingdom that the Scottish people are relatively undertaxed and over-represented within the United Kingdom context?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend interprets the situation in one way, but another interpretation is that the situation is like that because we justify it. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that, should a devolved Parliament with tax-raising powers be introduced in Scotland, it is almost inevitable that a significant increase in taxation would occur in Scotland. What the Labour party has failed to say is where that tax would be raised. Income tax increases of 3p in the pound would raise only £150 million per 1p against the £3 billion of extra public expenditure that is spent by the Scottish Office compared with the United Kingdom average.

Mr. Trimble: Is it not unrealistic to compare taxation and expenditure while we are all in the state of the United Kingdom? Is not the principle that individuals, whether resident in Scotland, Merseyside or wherever, who are paying the same tax rates as others, are entitled to the same levels of benefit and public services so long as the principle of parity is maintained? Is it not also the case that, if the principle of parity is departed from through having different tax rates in part of the kingdom, it calls into question the other side of the coin of parity?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about differences in taxation. It is clear that, should a tax-raising Parliament be introduced in Scotland, it could well be the slippery slope towards separation within the United Kingdom. That is why the SNP has stated clearly that it supports the Labour party's devolution proposals.

Mr. McFall: Is not the crucial question how the Government spend that money? Official figures show that, on a conservative estimate, local government reorganisation alone has cost more than £250 million—an unwanted cost in what is now a Tory-free area. According to official figures, the poll tax in Scotland alone cost more than £1.5 billion. Then we had the scandal of Health Care International—a scandal that will follow the Secretary of State to his political grave—which cost £45 million. Is not the conclusion to be drawn from that brief, random sample that Scotland cannot afford to be governed by the Tories at any cost, irrespective of whether that means Redwood or deadwood?

Mr. Kynoch: As usual, the hon. Gentleman misquotes the figures. Each of those figures is erroneous, although I shall not go into detail about them now, other than to point out that, if he had listened to the Public Accounts Committee hearing on HCI, he would know that the real figure is about £15 million. Clearly, what is of interest is trying to ensure that we get the best possible services in Scotland and the best possible chance for business to succeed there. I believe that the Government's policies have delivered, and are delivering, just that.

Teaching Posts

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimate for the number of teaching posts that will be lost as a result of the recent education funding settlement. [29384]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in December last year was a tight but realistic one for local authorities. It is for authorities to determine their spending on education and other programmes in the light of the resources available to them.

Mr. McKelvey: The Minister has not answered the question. I asked how many teachers would be unemployed. He knows that there are unemployed teachers in the Lothians, in Central region, in the Orkneys and in the Borders. Why is the settlement considered tight but adequate when the pupil-teacher ratio is different in different schools? Local authority schools have a ratio of 15 pupils per teacher and grant-aided schools nine pupils per teacher. In the independent schools, the ratio is 10:1. Why do the Government not aim for a mean figure so that the children of Scotland have equal opportunities for education and the same number of pupils per teacher?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The settlement provided for Government-supported expenditure to rise by £103 million—an increase of 1.72 per cent. It is for local authorities to choose their priorities within their budgets, and any job losses must be seen against a background of growth in Scottish local authority manpower. In the year to June 1994, the staffing levels of authorities in Scotland increased by more than 2,000—nearly 1 per cent.—and there was an increase of no less than 9 per cent. in central service staff. In the same period, English authorities reduced staff by 1 per cent.

Mr. Stephen: Can my hon. Friend confirm a figure given to me by the Library—that Government spending on education per head of population in Scotland is 31 per cent. higher than similar spending in England? Is that not a solid commitment by the taxpayer to the education of Scottish children, and is it not one of the many benefits that the people of Scotland enjoy by virtue of their membership of the United Kingdom?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In fact, the figure is even more substantial. Spending is 33 per cent. higher per capita in Scotland than south of the border. [Interruption.] However much hon. Members may complain, that is substantial funding. But of course local authorities have the discretion to choose their own priorities. In our view, it would be wrong to take powers away from local democracy in that respect.

Mr. Worthington: Last week, St. Andrew's college in my constituency had its teaching courses graded as highly


satisfactory by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, but at the same time the same body was telling it to produce plans whereby it would lose one third of its teaching force by 1998. That is a result of the Government's settlement for higher education and for education in general. Are the Government not ashamed that they are requiring colleges to lose one third of their staff?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter is under consideration by the SHEFC. The council is assisting the college by appointing an external consultant to work with the college management on the preparation of its plan, and I understand that there have been meetings on the subject recently. When the SHEFC has received the college's proposals and has considered the plan, it will be in a position to make a considered statement. We are not yet at that stage.

Higher Education

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently on higher education courses in Scotland; what was the figure in May 1979; what those figures were as a fraction of the population of the relevant age; and if he will make a statement. [29385]

Mr. Lang: There were 132,509 people on full-time higher education courses in Scotland in 1993–94 and 68,322 in 1978–79. The age participation index for the earliest available year, 1980–81, was 17.3 per cent. compared with 38.3 per cent. in 1993–94. These figures show the extent to which the Government have increased overall numbers of students, and participation, in higher education in Scotland.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept my strong congratulations on those excellent figures? The people of Scotland will surely know that this Government have brought real educational opportunities to the young people of Scotland in a way that the Labour party never has.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An increase from just under 70,000 when the Government came to power to 132,500 now is a remarkable commitment by the Government to higher education in Scotland.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of the increased numbers in higher education in Scotland, why are the Secretary of State and his colleagues so cool about the possibility of developing a university of the highlands, an idea that is backed by the development agencies, by the local authorities and by all the Members of Parliament in the area?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of the considerable expansion of the universities which has already taken place in Scotland. I have, of course, taken a close interest in the development of academic opportunities for those in the highlands. I compliment all those involved in the extension of distance learning techniques and other activities to bring advantages to that area. At the moment, we do not see a case for a university of the highlands as such.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have beaten their own targets in terms of increasing the proportion of people going into higher

education. Would he consider moving money from that budget into training people in technician and apprentice work? We seem constantly to be putting money into graduates who sometimes do not get jobs, although we do not have enough people with good, practical technical skills.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right and makes a telling point. This is a matter to which the Government have given considerable attention. My hon. Friend will have studied the recent competitiveness White Paper and its predecessor a year ago, which show that the focus of our attention is on improving skills in precisely the area that he identifies.

Food Hygiene

Mrs. Liddell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice is being given to environmental health officers in respect of the possible organised infringement of food hygiene regulations. [29387]

Mr. Kynoch: Advice on the enforcement of food hygiene regulations is contained in the codes of practice made under section 40 of the Food Safety Act 1990. Further advice is issued on an ad hoc basis when necessary.

Mrs. Liddell: The Minister will be aware of the fact that in my constituency, a shopkeeper was recently fined £1,000 for selling food that was 10 years out of date. Will he join me in congratulating the environmental health officers of Monklands district council on their efficiency in tracking down this appalling situation? In view of the seriousness of the offence and the possible danger to many vulnerable members of the community, such as the elderly and the very young, from eating contaminated food, will the Minister instruct his Department to give extra assistance to food hygiene inspectors so that any organised infringement can be tracked down?

Mr. Kynoch: I was aware of the hon. Lady's problems with food labelling in her constituency. She is right to say that it was within the remit of the environmental health officers to deal with the matter. We are confident that they have sufficient powers under existing legislation to deal with such cases.

NHS Management

Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the management of the national health service. [29388]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The NHS reforms in Scotland provide improved health and patient care and will continue to do so.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the Government's plan eventually to privatise all NHS trusts, either by management buy-outs or by takeovers by companies such as BUPA and AMI, in terms of which Stonehaven hospital is the first classic example? Will that development be linked to private health insurance, giving us a fully private health care system? When will the Government come clean about their true plans?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that services will continue to be provided free


at the point of delivery, whoever provides them and, of course, we are interested in the highest possible standards of service.
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to see that no less a person than the adviser to the last Labour Secretary of State for Health has written in the Fabian Review:
There is now overwhelming evidence that GP fundholders are able to get a better deal for their patients … It makes sense to build on what has been achieved and induce more GPs to join the system.
That is confirmation that what the Government are doing is entirely on the right tracks from one of the hon. Gentleman's party colleagues.

Poverty

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of people in Scotland living in poverty; what plans he has to reduce this figure; and if he will make a statement. [29389]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Statistics on patterns of household disposable income are provided in "Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1991/92", published in July last year. The best response to low

household income is to sustain economic recovery and to assist those in greatest need. The Government's policies address both these aspects.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister not thoroughly ashamed of his cop-out in answering that question? Does he not realise that many crime and drug problems stem from poverty? Many young people have no hope and no future. Many old people have no decent and dignified retirement. Does he not know that people are dying as a result of poverty in health, housing, jobs and finance? When is he going to do something positive, such as making the Millennium Commission spend some of its millions on projects to tackle poverty instead of on making multi-millionaires out of Tory Members?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should have told the House that unemployment in his Shettleston constituency has fallen by 21 per cent. He has forgotten to mention that more than £85 million pounds is being given in urban aid to areas of housing deprivation in Scotland and, of course, that the vast majority of people in Scotland are far better off. Average income rose 36 per cent. between 1979 and 1991 and is up for all family types. I would advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the whole position. Scotland is doing extremely well in many respects.

European Summit (Cannes)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Cannes, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible for Europe, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis).
The Council rightly gave priority to the need to promote growth and employment. It called for flexible job markets and rigorous budgetary policies to keep inflation and deficits down. These are the policies that we have been advocating for years.
We need to create a Europe of enterprise. Seventy per cent. of the jobs in the European Union are in small companies, and I welcome the Council's focus on the need to free these businesses from red tape. We have promoted work in Europe on deregulation designed to stimulate employment and innovation, and the Council has now called for specific proposals from the Commission this year.
At the summit, the Heads of Government discussed a single currency. As I have made clear to the House, I believe that a single currency carries significant economic, political and constitutional implications. That is why at Maastricht I fought for our right to keep the pound.
At the summit, other Heads of Government showed a growing awareness of the difficulties of the plan for economic and monetary union. It was agreed that there can be no question of any member states moving to stage 3 in 1997. I am equally clear that there is not the remotest prospect of all 15 states meeting the convergence criteria by 1999, although it is probable that a small number will do so.
At this Council, for the first time, it was acknowledged that a move to a single currency by some member states and not others would have serious practical and economic consequences for the future operations of the Union. Finance Ministers have now been asked to look at this problem and report further.
A number of questions need to be addressed. What would a move to a single currency mean for those who did not participate? Would those bound into monetary union benefit, or would those remaining outside the union gain advantage? What are the implications for the single market? What would be the impact on resource transfers?
Many questions arise as we approach stage 3. I have long believed that it is vitally necessary to examine these problems in detail, and it should lead to a much more realistic and informed debate.
Any decision to move to a single currency will be the most far-reaching structural change for the whole European Union—vital, of course, for those that participate in it, but it will be equally vital for those who choose not to participate in it. At the very least, it will change the union profoundly, perhaps in ways that are unexpected.
I believe that it is essential for this country to participate fully in that debate. Here, above all, we must make our practical views count and stand up for our

interests in Europe, yet our ability to influence the debate on a single currency now, when it matters, would be destroyed if we exercised our opt-out now. We would forfeit our influence over the most crucial current issue affecting Europe's future. That would not he in our interests. We should seek to influence the debate before we finally decide our position.
Agreement was reached on Europol and the customs information system, which will reinforce the fight against cross-border crime and drug trafficking. Agreement on Europol had been held up because some member states insisted that the European Court of Justice must have jurisdiction. I would not agree to give the European Court a role in such a sensitive area involving our police and criminal intelligence activities. After a prolonged debate, the question of possible European Court of Justice involvement in the dispute settlement procedure for Europol was set to one side, while, in the meantime, the convention was agreed.
The European Council will examine the dispute settlement procedure again in June 1996, but I have made it emphatically clear that I do not anticipate that the United Kingdom will take a different position then. As a result, the European Court of Justice will not be the arbiter in any case relating to Europol which involves the United Kingdom Government or arises in the courts of the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom has also led the fight to combat fraud in the Community. The last European Council at Essen agreed the plan of action that we proposed. The Cannes Council confirmed agreement on a regulation and convention providing tools for the task, and at Madrid in December, we shall review the action that member states are taking to crack down on fraud.
The European Council took stock of the earlier preparations for next year's intergovernmental conference. It agreed that the preparatory study group should consider how the European Union could better respond to its citizens' expectations. At the heart of this, of course, is the need for effective and rigorous application of subsidiarity.
In 1990, the Commission proposed 185 pieces of primary legislation. In the first half of this year, it has proposed not 185 but 11. At Cannes, the Commission was instructed to complete its two-year review of subsidiarity applied to existing legislation in time for consideration at Madrid this December.
The prospect of further enlargement was highlighted by the meeting yesterday between the 15 members of the European Union and the Heads of Government of 11 prospective member states. These 11 will benefit from the programmes agreed for help to central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.
The Council decided that the next European development fund would provide 13.3 billion ecu, or about £11 billion, to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. The United Kingdom also provides high-quality bilateral aid to many of these countries. I intend to ensure that multilateral contributions do not swallow up our bilateral aid.
Our contribution to the eighth EDF—worth 1.63 billion ecu, or about £1.35 billion, over five years from the year 2000—will be very substantial, but we are taking a smaller share than under the seventh European


development fund and, as a result, placing less pressure on our direct bilateral programme to countries with whom we have a long relationship.
On the former Yugoslavia, the new European Union mediator, Mr. Bildt, reported on his first visit to the region. We asked him to concentrate urgently on ways to reopen talks with all the parties on the basis of the contact group plan, and to continue efforts to secure recognition of Bosnia by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
During the Council, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met the Irish Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister for bilateral talks. We commissioned a joint report on how the paramilitaries could decommission weapons and explosives. The Taoiseach and I will discuss this report in due course.
We can take considerable satisfaction in this summit. On economic issues, in the fight against cross-border crime, on Community fraud, in the emphasis on enlargement, in the sensible balance reached in the allocation of external funds, and in the support given to Mr. Bildt's diplomatic efforts over Bosnia, the Council has followed courses which the United Kingdom advocated. On other areas of vital national interest, we have influenced the debate while retaining our own rights of decision.
I would not pretend that these results were invariably easy to achieve. But, as this Council again showed, the debate within Europe has evolved significantly in our direction over recent years. I am confident that we can carry this evolution a great deal further by robust advocacy, by patient negotiations, and by standing by our belief in a commonsense Europe.
I have made it clear that I believe that the way forward for Europe is as a Europe of nation states built upon co-operation. Key decisions affecting this nation must be taken here in this House. My guiding principle is to do what I believe is in our national interest—to argue for Britain's interests in Europe, and to build a Europe which carries the trust of the British people. That I will continue to do.
I should like to add one further point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has devoted 43 years to unbroken public service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as a diplomat, a politician and a Minister. This was the 16th European Council that he has attended as Foreign Secretary. His huge contribution to foreign policy co-ordination among European Governments was recognised at the summit in a moving tribute by his colleagues. His contribution to our relations outside Europe has been equally important.
At this summit, as throughout the past five and a half years, his deep knowledge and calm authority have earned great credit for this country. My right hon. Friend has justly earned respect on both sides of the House, and I believe that this country owes him her thanks.

Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I am delighted to join in the tribute to his right hon. Friend. Whatever our political differences, I believe that he has always represented this country with honour and ability. That will be respected on both sides of the House.
I obviously agree entirely with what the Prime Minister said about Northern Ireland. I shall deal with some of the main issues that he raised in relation to the summit.
On Bosnia, we welcome the support that was given to the rapid reaction force. The communiqué said that the task was to help UNPROFOR both act and react. Will the Prime Minister amplify what that means? Is the force there for protection primarily, or will it be used in a more active way—for example, in preventing the bombardment of the safe areas?
While we welcome again the renewed commitment to Sarajevo, which was shelled again this morning, can we have the assurance repeated that no deals were done with the Bosnians in exchange for the release of hostages, and that we continue to reserve every means at our disposal to enforce the United Nations mandate?
On enlargement of the European Union to the countries of central and eastern Europe, there will be support for the broad principles that were outlined. We welcome the participation of the 11 potential future members of the European Union in the summit. Is not one of the main barriers to enlargement the common agricultural policy? Is it not time for a far more fundamental reform of the CAP, which has become an unreasonable burden on European consumers?
While we agree with the aim expressed in the presidency conclusions, which call for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty by the end of 1996, can the Prime Minister explain how, for example, the French decision to resume nuclear testing is consistent with that aim?
We support the strong statement that was made on tackling racism across Europe, and on crime and fraud. On jobs, we welcome the clear emphasis on measures to help the long-term unemployed. But how can the Prime Minister agree with his European partners that more needs to he done, when his Government and Cabinet are initiating a massive 30 per cent. cut in spending on the long-term unemployed and their programmes? Is not that a serious—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where will the money come from?"] Conservative Members ask where the money will come from. We have heard the former Secretary of State for Wales's opinion. He says that there is £5 billion-worth of waste just waiting to be gathered up. We could have a programme for the long-term unemployed, finance the royal yacht and have enough left over for a new prime ministerial spaceship to help him in his bilaterals with the planet Portillo.
On monetary union, how can the Prime Minister reconcile his position today with what has been said recently? The President of the Board of Trade has said that a single market needs a single currency; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says that he does not want a single currency, period; the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it is not a threat to the nation state; the Employment Secretary says that it is. Does the Prime Minister know that, this morning, the President of the Board of Trade has said that a referendum is inconsistent with parliamentary sovereignty, although the Foreign Secretary days earlier said that there was a case for one?
The Prime Minister, who once said that he supported the principle of a single currency and was opposed to referendums, now says that he wants to keep his options open on both. Is it not the case that there are now at least nine different positions on record stated by members of the Cabinet, and that the Prime Minister is responsible for three of them? I notice that the Employment Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade are not here—they are probably putting in the telephone lines.
If the divisions are so deep and irreconcilable that the Conservatives cannot govern themselves, why on earth should they be trusted to govern the country? Did not the Foreign Secretary get it right in Cannes during the summit, when he said that those divisions were damaging Britain?
Does the Prime Minister—who at least is behaving with some semblance of honour and integrity throughout this—know what was happening while he was trying to represent Britain abroad? The friends of the Employment Secretary and the friends of the President of the Board of Trade were twisting the knife, striking deals and briefing the papers in a way that would have made Mr. Francis Urquhart blush. That is what happened while the Prime Minister was in Cannes.
Has not the last week exposed the real Conservative party, in all its deceit and squalor? It is an ungovernable party that is unfit to govern, and the sooner that this country is rid of the Conservatives—all of them—the better for Britain.

The Prime Minister: That was all very entertaining—all that "twisting the knife" stuff. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am remarkably unbloodied, and I will stay that way. As far as the European summit was concerned, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was not on the agenda and was not discussed.
Let me deal with the earlier points the right hon. Gentleman made, when he touched loosely on the statement that I made. The right hon. Gentleman graciously supported my remarks about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I am grateful to him for that. I am also grateful for his continued support for our proposals in Northern Ireland.
As far as Bosnia is concerned, I can first give the right hon. Gentleman a complete assurance that no deals will be done with the Bosnian Serbs, and that assurance stands now and for the future. As for helping UNPROFOR to act and to react, the intention is to give greater protection, and to give UN commanders more choice and options as to what action they may deem necessary in the interests of the safety of their men who are on duty there in the service of the UN.
On the subject of enlargement, it was encouraging to see the 11 potential new members at the summit. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need for further movement on the common agricultural policy; indeed, I have been saying just that for some years.
It is clear that, as the European Union enlarges, the CAP in its present form will be unsustainable, for cost and other reasons, and will necessarily need to be significantly re-examined and reformed as part of the enlargement process. We have been advocating that for some time. There is no doubt about the need for further reform, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that has long been our view.
On the point about a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the French President can best speak for himself. However, he told the summit that he proposed to end his series of tests in, I think, May of next year, so that he would be in a position to sign the test ban treaty later in the year, together with the other potential signatories.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about employment and jobs, we have done a great deal more than many other country, which is why our unemployment has fallen by 600,000 from its peak—a better record than any of our European partners. It is why, I think perhaps with the solitary exception of Holland, we have the lowest unemployment rate anywhere in the European Union.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to expenditure on creating jobs. A significant part of creating jobs is not just expenditure, but removing from employers costs that inhibit them from taking on workers because it is no longer cost-effective to do so. That is the position that we have taken for a number of years—and it is significantly because of that that unemployment has fallen so much. That position is now accepted by our European Union partners, and was fully agreed to during our discussions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred at some length to economic and monetary union, and what he described as differences and confusion. I hope that he can clear up some of his confusion. The deputy Labour leader, who sits beside the right hon. Gentleman, said, "Yes, we are against a single currency." The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, "Personally, I am in favour of a single currency."
Labour MEPs have voted in favour of a single currency, and within the time limits and timetables that have been set. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said in the past that setting such timetables would be irresponsible. Last week, Labour's spokesman on monetary affairs in Europe wrote:
A single currency is crucial to consolidating the single European market … Britain can no longer forge an independent monetary policy.
I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Sedgefield agrees with that, or whether it is the latest illustration of one of his MEPs being infantile.

Mr. David Howell: On the matter of a single currency, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whereas previously it was argued that countries that stayed outside the single currency zone would somehow be weakened, disadvantaged and marginalised, it is now being argued that those countries that stay outside will be too competitive and too strong and will have an unfair advantage, and that barriers must be raised against them? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that he utterly rejects that ridiculous argument, and that any attempt to divide Europe by raising barriers against non-participating countries would be highly divisive, and indeed illegal?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the changing nature of the debate. No specific proposals have yet been made by those most likely to go into a single currency about what inhibitions they might wish to place on those who remain outside to ensure that they do not gain a competitive advantage. We can be clear about the direction in which the debate is moving—and, as my right hon. Friend said, that is unlikely to be acceptable to many countries that do not enter a single currency.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister was right to say that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary enjoys a wide circle of respect, on both sides of the House and way beyond it. His retirement marks the end of a long and distinguished career in the service of this House and this country.
The Prime Minister's statement shows that he did the best job he could to represent Britain's interests as he saw them, given the impossible position in which his own party has put him. Is it not absolutely clear that a Government who are so divided on Europe cannot represent Britain's best interests in Europe? Is it not also absolutely clear that the Prime Minister must come off the fence on the issues of a single currency, political co-operation and the granting of a referendum, to give the people of this country a chance to have their say? So long as he ducks that, he or any of his successors will be a lame duck Prime Minister presiding over a broken-backed Government, incapable of representing this country in Europe or anywhere else.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which are well deserved and will be echoed in many quarters.
On representing this country in Europe, as I told the House just a few moments ago, the conclusions reached at the European summit by all the participants were conclusions which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have been advocating from this Dispatch Box for the past five years. So the suggestion that we are unable to represent Britain's interest in Europe is utterly rejected, not just by me but by those Heads of Government in Europe who now take the position that we have advocated for a very long time.
What they would not have accepted, of course, is the proposition that is so often advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. Were he to go to Europe, he would find himself taking part in the debate on the basis of what most people in Europe thought in 1992 rather than what they think today in 1995.

Dame Jill Knight: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that many people outside this House will commend his firm stand, leading to a universal acceptance by Ministers from the European Community that Britain could not, would not, shall not and cannot ever give over the jurisdiction of our courts to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? [Interruption.] May I suggest that many people outside care very much about the right to make decisions in our own courts?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, I think that there are some areas in which it would not be acceptable to the House for rulings to be made outside the United Kingdom by the European Court of Justice. It was precisely for that reason that I declined to accept European Court of Justice rulings in the very sensitive intelligence area that will be covered by Europol.
There are some areas in which, in the interests of dispute management and dispute settlement, the European Court of Justice has had a long involvement in our affairs for the past 25 years or so. As my hon. Friend says, there are some areas that would not be acceptable to the House. This weekend, we touched on one of those areas, and I made our position clear.

Sir Peter Hordern: Was there not a proposal that a council of wise men be formed to consider the consequences of those countries that had not signed up to a single currency? Was there not also a proposal to extend the powers of the European court? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those countries that may decide

to form a single currency knew very well what they were doing when they signed the Maastricht treaty, and that there can be no consequences for the single market proposals as a result of any arrangement that they may come to?

The Prime Minister: They were certainly aware of what they were about when they committed themselves—I think, unwisely—to firmly entering on a particular timetable. It would be unacceptable to many people in the European Union if they were now to see an impact on the single market, which was separately agreed, as a result of the decisions they took in the Maastricht treaty on a single currency. I agree with my right hon. Friend about that. A large number of member states across the European Union will do so as well.
There was, at one stage in the summit, a suggestion that some wise men should gather together—a small number of wise men—[Interruption.]—nominated by Heads of Government, to consider the implications of a single currency on those nations that did not join. The debate advanced, and it was suggested that a wise man be appointed. I was not in favour of that, and the idea did not proceed. It was decided that we would return the matter to the wise men who sit regularly on the ECOFIN Council.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a single currency, the communiqué makes it clear that the leaders of the European Council express their firm resolve to get through the transition period towards a single currency by 1 January 1999 at the latest. They further went on to say that there must be strict observance of the convergence criteria in the Maastricht treaty.
Given the fact that one of those criteria is that members should also be members of the exchange rate mechanism for a period of two years before the decision is made, and within a 2.5 per cent. band of parity, is it not clear that the Prime Minister will have to make that decision, if he is going to keep his options open, by 1 January 1997? Is it not time that he started thinking about what debate should take place in the House in preparation for that decision?

The Prime Minister: I have already said to the House on occasions in the past that I do not anticipate the United Kingdom rejoining the exchange rate mechanism in this Parliament, and I reiterate that point for the right hon. Gentleman.
The convergence criteria are, of course, important criteria, which were actually put in the Maastricht treaty at the request of the United Kingdom, because they are sensible economic guidelines. Quite apart from the fact that they are likely to lead to a convergence of inflation and growth performance, they are sensible economic guidelines on their own.
What the right hon. Gentleman left out of his question when he referred to 1 January 1999 and the communiqué was that it actually refers to that date and also refers to the protocol—our protocol, the United Kingdom protocol, which gives us an option not to join.
As for joining the exchange rate mechanism at 2.5 per cent. bands, there are, of course, no 2.5 per cent. narrow bands at the moment in the exchange rate mechanism for any nation in Europe. There are much wider bands at the moment, and nobody is talking about narrowing the bands. That is one of the reasons, but by no means the only reason, why I have expressed some doubt on a


number of occasions about whether that date, 1 January 1999, is a date that will be met. I should say that the date is there, but the date is always subject to the convergence criteria.
There is no possibility whatsoever that very large numbers of the European Union members will meet those convergence criteria. Some members, a minority of member states, will do so, but by no means all of them. Then the European Union will have to face the fundamental decision of what is the impact on the Union as a whole, its operation and effectiveness in the future—the whole flavour of the Union—if a small group of countries go ahead and create a dividing line between those within a single currency and those beyond. We have been arguing for further detailed discussions in order to examine that, and they were finally agreed to at the summit.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The Prime Minister claims that he wishes that Britain were at the heart of Europe. Is he aware that the President of the European Parliament has stated that affairs in Europe were in paralysis at Cannes, because of the state of the Tory party in Great Britain? Is he not ashamed that his machinations and the machinations of his party have damaged our country's interests?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. There was a time some 10 or 12 years ago when many people felt that the development of the European Union was in what was then known as Euro-sclerosis. I do not accept that quote from the President of the European Parliament, nor have I seen it. Even if he did say that, I do not agree with it, and it is wrong.

Mr. William Cash: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend did not answer the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) with respect to the firm resolve that is confirmed in the conclusions, signed by Government, on behalf of the Union, would my right hon. Friend agree that the firm resolve that is contained in the statement is completely and utterly in line with his refusal to allow the Danes to have their way in the referendum they held a few years ago, and, furthermore, the U-turn that my right hon. Friend made with respect to majority voting last year?

The Prime Minister: With great respect, my hon. Friend is talking through the back of his head.

Dr. Tony Wright: You have lost that vote.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

The Prime Minister: I must invite the hon. Member for Bolsover to calm down. I know that he offered to help at Cowley street recently and was rebuffed, and I hope that he is not too hurt.
The treaty I signed had a protocol to which I referred in reply to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), which meant that this country was not bound to enter into a single currency and that we would make our own decision at the same time.
As far as a refusal to accept the result of the Danish referendum is concerned, I have to say to my hon. Friend that I have never heard such claptrap in my life. It was the Danish Government who wished to make further arrangements following the Danish referendum to see how they should proceed, and the United Kingdom had the presidency of the European Union at that time and assisted the Danish Government in the policy directive that they, the Danish Government, wanted. There is no question whatsoever, now or in the past, of the British Government seeking to put pressure on the Danish Government to do something that the Danish Government did not wish to do.
If my hon. Friend reads again the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, he will see that I did respond to his question.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Prime Minister referred to pressure being brought to bear on the Government of Serbia to recognise Bosnia. Does he mean by that that they would be asked to recognise the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is what is normally meant by recognition? If he does not mean that, what is this Bosnia that they will be asked to recognise?

The Prime Minister: We recognise states, not Governments. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, but of course there is a clear distinction between the two. We are talking about Bosnia within the framework set out by the contact group.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the longer-term future, the European Union needs to be dominated not by the successful deutschmark but by its own new unified European currency? Bearing in mind the fact that most of the other member states subject to convergence, who are proud of their history and their national sovereignty, very much want to join that single currency, should we not have the same self-confidence and seek to do the same thing?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to see the European Union dominated at any stage, in any way, by any nation. That is undesirable. It is a collection of nation states within the European Union.
I find, on many occasions, when I attend the European Union summit, that there is a tendency among a number of the larger states expressly to ensure that they take account of the wishes and activities of the smaller states which have a smaller voting power, precisely to avoid that general question of domination. Were that to change in any way, I believe that it would do structural damage to the broad relationship that at present exists throughout the European Union. It is for that reason that I have always believed that we need to approach these matters with consensus as far as is possible.

Mr. David Trimble: The Prime Minister referred to his meeting with John Bruton, the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, for the purpose of discussing the surrender and the destruction of terrorist weapons. Can he confirm the reports in the Dublin press this morning that, during that meeting, Mr. Bruton urged on him the early release of prisoners convicted of terrorist offences, and can the Prime Minister tell us what response he made on that point?

The Prime Minister: No, there was no discussion about early release of prisoners. The position that the Irish


Government have held for a long time has been known about that matter. As I have said in the past, that is a matter for the British judicial system and for no one else.

Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the generous and handsome tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was widely applauded by Conservative Members? Further, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to accept that the task that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has faced in the past four and a half years has been made easier because he has worked in partnership with my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous words about our right hon. Friend. I can certainly confirm that I have greatly enjoyed the working relationship that I have had with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and I very much hope that his decision to retire has nothing to do with his working relationship with me.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister think that it is a good idea to go travelling round the world every other week? Last week it was Nova Scotia; this week it was Cannes. He has left the house empty, and the door unlocked. Does he, in hindsight, agree with the lines of the song,
It's very nice to go travelling,
But it's oh so nice to come home"?

The Prime Minister: It is always a very great pleasure to come home, Madam Speaker. One has the inevitable delights, not only of being in this country, but of being able to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman about the summit that one has just attended.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Following the Prime Minister's great success in securing an opt-out from the social chapter, does he recall that Mr. Delors said that that would make Britain a paradise for inward investment in Europe? Is he aware that 40 per cent. of United States investment in Europe comes to Britain, and that that is more than its investment in France, Germany and Italy combined? Did any of the Prime Minister's colleagues in Cannes admit that they wished that they had been sufficiently on the ball to get the same deal for their countries?

The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. He quotes the former President of the Commission accurately; that is indeed what Mr. Delors said, and I agree entirely with his sentiments on that occasion. There is a remarkable amount of inward investment into the United Kingdom, partly because we are not part of the social chapter, and for other reasons as well. That investment goes notably to Scotland, Wales and parts of the north-east and north-west.
A number of our European Union partners are keen to see the United Kingdom join the social chapter. One of the reasons why they are so keen to see that happen is that it would destroy some of the competitive advantage that this country enjoys at present by not having additional social costs imposed on our employers at the cost of jobs for our work force. The fact that unemployment in this country has fallen more rapidly than elsewhere is not unconnected to the fact that we are not a member of the social chapter.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister inform the House what progress the summit made in dealing with the item about combating racism and xenophobia? I think that he will agree that that is a very important item. Is it not about time that Conservative Members started dealing with the rampant xenophobia that became even more apparent while the Prime Minister was away?

The Prime Minister: As to the European summit, the hon. Gentleman will see that there is a paragraph about racism and xenophobia that was mentioned a number of times. The Foreign Ministers discussed it, and it was also discussed in Heads of Government. We are seeking to monitor precisely what occurs.
The general problem is evident in a number of European countries and it is a problem that I take extremely seriously in this country. I do not think that we should ignore it or brush it to one side. I do not do that, and I assure the hon. Gentleman, on the basis of our discussions in the past day or so, that neither do my European partners.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very relieved that the Heads of Government have recognised that 1997 at last is not going to go ahead—[Laughter] Does he also agree that his previous answer with regard to the single currency makes it quite clear that we did not believe that we would join the single currency in 1999? Is that now the clear position of Her Majesty's Government as a result of his previous answer?

Mr. Skinner: The end of the world is nigh.

The Prime Minister: As I have said to the House on a number of occasions, I am very dubious about whether any of our European partners will be in a position to go ahead in 1999. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) referred to the present requirement that member states should join the exchange rate mechanism two years before on narrow bands if they are to proceed in 1999. I think that there is an element of doubt about the rigidity of that particular element of the convergence criteria, so I do not think that it would prove to be an absolute bar.
However, I reiterate my very strong doubts about whether a significant number of nation states will be ready and prepared to go ahead in 1999. I cannot be absolutely certain that that will be the case; if it is, the House will have to make its own decision on the basis of the protocol that I signed at Maastricht.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On the question of a single currency, during preparations for the Council meeting, did any member of the Prime Minister's Cabinet express reservations, doubts, opposition or scepticism about the tactics that he was pursuing—or were they all right behind him as usual?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be extremely pleased to know that they agreed entirely with my tactics.

Mr. Tim Renton: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary on the success of the summit? I note with pleasure the totality of his remarks about the single currency. However, has he


noticed that in his absence there have been some scary remarks about the abolition of the pound—a sound bite if ever there was?
Given the brilliant option that my right hon. Friend secured for sterling at Maastricht, can he tell the House whether any European leader at Cannes suggested to him the early abolition of the pound or any ill consequences for Britain if we decided not to join a single currency?

The Prime Minister: No. I can confirm that no pressure in respect of either of those points was directed at me by my European partners at the Cannes summit or at any previous summit. People are now examining with great care the detailed implications of proceeding. I welcome that debate because, even for people who have looked at the matter carefully, many of the operational matters that will necessarily follow are not yet clear and require careful examination.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given the Prime Minister's assurance that no deal was done with the Karadzic Serbs about UN hostages, how does he square that with United Nations sources in Bosnia that confirmed that a deal was done? Is it purely a coincidence that, despite the slaughter of Bosnian citizens, including children, there have been no further air strikes, even though NATO asked for them? Will he absolutely confirm to the House that no deal was done by any Government, the United Nations or any United Nations official that there would be no air strikes if the hostages were released?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on both points. No deal was done of which I, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or any other heads of Government to whom I have spoken are aware, to secure the release of the hostages. Nor has any undertaking been given by member Governments or commanders on the ground about future air strikes.

Mr. Wicks: Not by the UN?

The Prime Minister: No. No deal was given. As I indicated earlier and on previous occasions, we have not entered into those deals. I do not know what has been said or what the hon. Gentleman heard, but his comments do not remotely accord with the information that I have.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that almost everyone who wants Britain to continue to play a constructive part in the European union of nation states will want our country to be led by a skilful, tough and experienced negotiator? Is he aware that most people believe that we have such a person at the moment?

The Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put his point most generously. I look forward to carrying out that task.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Foreign Secretary that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has damaged the effectiveness of Britain?

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I did not say anything of the kind.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may have heard the sotto voce interruption, almost for the first time in his many years in the House, by my right hon. Friend. If I heard him right, he said no such thing. "What rubbish," he said. At least, I think that is what he said.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progress made at the summit on job creation, more subsidiarity and better clarification of all the issues involved in the introduction of a single currency demonstrates once again the crucial importance to Britain of continuing to be involved in a positive and constructive way with our 14 partners in the European Union?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do agree. It is often quoted at me that I have said that the United Kingdom should be at the heart of Europe, and I believe that we should. Unless we are at the heart of Europe advocating what we believe is right for Europe, we will not have influence in Europe. That does not mean that we must accept everything that our European partners say, do or think, and every direction in which they wish to go. By being at the heart of Europe, we can influence the direction of the European Union, and I intend that we should do that.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Prime Minister said that some problems relating to a single currency will be referred to the Finance Council for further consideration. Will not Finance Ministers have to consider that matter in the context of the Maastricht treaty, which calls for a single currency—albeit with a British opt-out? Is it not a fact that the British Government's "Shall we, shan't we?" policy has not helped the Prime Minister or his party, and cannot possibly help Britain?

The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend and his partners in ECOFIN look at it, it will not be within the confines of the treaty but against its backcloth. But the treaty says nothing at all about the problems that are about to be examined. I shall not list them all again, because I set out some of them in answering questions and in my statement. Those matters require to be examined in detail.
The Maastricht treaty set out the objectives, subject, of course, to the convergence criteria and other matters, but it is essential that these issues are examined. When they are, the reality of what occurs from that examination will have to be taken into account by all the Heads of Government. The aspiration, the wish, for a single currency, has always been based upon the right economic criteria. That was the reason for the convergence criteria. My right hon. Friend and his colleagues will be examining many matters that will be absolutely material to that.

Mr. John Wilkinson: At the Cannes summit, the European Heads of Government agreed to the disbursement of no less than 24.7 billion ecu to the countries of eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific. For the Mediterranean, the amount was 10 per cent. less than previously anticipated. None the less, there is more in real terms. Does my right hon. Friend think that such vast expenditure on countries that are fairly far from home are in the best interests of the British people? Are they in accordance with our party's principles of trying to reduce public expenditure in real terms?

The Prime Minister: Aid has always been part of our public expenditure pattern. As I showed in my statement,


the British contribution to what is now known as EDF8 is 24 to 25 per cent. below the British contribution to EDF7. That is because we do not want to ransack our bilateral aid programme, first, for many countries which are very poor and to which the majority of our aid is directed, and secondly, for those with which we have a long historical relationship and an obligation. We do not wish to move too many of the funds away from that.
I think that I would defend, in this country's interests, help to the countries of eastern Europe. We have removed the military iron curtain from across the middle of Europe, and I would not wish to replace it with an economic iron curtain. For that reason, it is in our security interests as well as our economic interests to try to help those countries that are emerging from 50 years of isolation and communism into the sort of free-market system that my hon. Friend and I are in the House to protect.

Dr. Tony Wright: May I offer the Prime Minister honest congratulations on the dignity of his conduct through the Cannes summit? It contrasted vividly with the shabby antics of many of those he left behind.
I should like to ask about the single currency. Accepting the argument that there is real merit and demerit in Europe moving towards a single currency and the argument about the nature of the opt-out, can the right hon. Gentleman conceive of circumstances in which a core of countries in Europe might move towards a single currency and in which it might be in the British national interest to stand outside? What are those circumstances?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can conceive of circumstances in which that might occur. Self-evidently, there are both obvious merits and obvious demerits in a single currency, and they have been examined and discussed many times in the past. I shall not weary the House by listing them now.
As I said to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), at the moment many of the implications are unknown. The circumstances in which the decision to move to a single currency will come before the European nations and the House are unknown. There are a great many matters in what would be the single most important economic decision that has been taken by European Governments collectively and individually this century. A huge number of matters are simply not possible to know at this moment.
I believe that it is in the British national interest not to commit ourselves to a move of this nature at what, in reality, may prove to be an unknown, uncertain time, in what will certainly be unknown and uncertain conditions. It is doubly the case when at the moment we have not examined what the implications of that move would be, either for those who made the move or for those who decided not to take it.
I want the British view, the British opinion, the pragmatic common sense that emanates from this country, its officials and successive Governments, to be in the debate as Europe moves towards a single currency, so that we may influence that debate. That is very important. But when it comes to the time to make the decision, it should be made rationally on the basis only of what it would mean for this country in every way—politically, economically, constitutionally—and of what the circumstances might be in the short term and the long term if we moved forward.
I know that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and others have had some amusement at the fact that I will not commit this country at this stage. I understand why people find it politically expedient to invite me to do so, but I say again to the House that it is in the British and the European interest for us to play a full part in the lead-up to this debate, and that it is in the British interest to make the decision when the circumstances are known. I will not commit us to a decision in advance.

Mr. James Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, he will not accept any significant constitutional changes that would impact on this House?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that to my hon. Friend, and I will tell the House why I am perfectly prepared to say that at this stage.
The implications of the Maastricht treaty are taking a long time to settle down. They have not settled down across Europe. It is not just in this country that there is concern about many of the changes that were made in the Maastricht treaty, and they need to settle down. It would not be in the interests of the European Union itself to try to push for significant changes in the intergovernmental conference in 1996–97.
I am certain that it would not be in the interests of this country to accept significant constitutional changes in 1996–97, and I have said so at this early stage to my European colleagues—not in a tone of aggression, but simply so that they are aware of the way in which we view the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, of the way in which we will negotiate in it, and of what we will not accept if other countries advance dramatic plans for change.
It is too early and it would not be in our interests, or in the interests of the European Union as a whole for this to make a dramatic move forward. I have made no secret of the fact that I will not accept such a move.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On ex-Yugoslavia, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to point out to his colleagues that, unfortunately, the preamble to the updated treaty of Rome does not incorporate the objectives of the UN charter? Indeed, it forces communities and states to engage in perpetual economic warfare, so risking fanning the flames of aggressive nationalism that that charter seeks to suppress.
Does the Prime Minister not agree with the people who oppose the community treaties on constitutional and international grounds that they are founded on a treaty that, in the middle of the 20th century, put into practice an agreement on iron and steel among six member states which was totally unsuited to achieving the necessary co-operation, harmony and peace between nations in the whole of Europe in the 21st century?

The Prime Minister: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all the western European countries and all 185 or 186 members of the United Nations are bound by the obligations they entered into when they signed the UN charter. On the European Union and matters political and military, that is dealt with only under the third pillar by intergovernmental agreement, so there is no implication


for those elements of policy as a result of the agreements that were signed—like the iron and steel agreements of so many years ago, before we joined the European Community as it then was; any policies that have been formulated since; or any treaties that have been signed since.

Mr. Michael Alison: Recalling the recent VE day celebrations, does my right hon. Friend agree that an even greater victory in Europe, which is even more worth celebrating, has been the friendship and co-operation of erstwhile enemies, as exemplified in the latest Council meeting in Cannes, to which he contributed so singularly by his negotiating skill and his friendly partnership? Will he continue to keep Britain at the heart of these benign and peaceful negotiating processes?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend and he put his point in a crisp and worthwhile manner. When one looks at some of the concerns and worries that people have about the European Union it is often forgotten that, quite apart from the economic changes that it has wrought—many of which are to our benefit and some of which are not liked by some people—and overarching them in many ways is the reality that the European Union, as formed, has extinguished forever any possibility whatsoever that the great nations of western Europe would ever again go to war on opposite sides. In a century that has twice seen a world war and the massacre of millions commence in western and central Europe, I believe that that is a gift beyond price. In many ways, the worries and concerns about economic and other matters pale beside that very great achievement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. That question period is over.

Whistleblower Protection

Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of victimisation; to invalidate any insurance taken out against such action; and for connected purposes.
But for the Prime Minister's statement, the introduction of this Bill would have followed Scottish questions, which would have been appropriate. The inquiry into the Piper Alpha oil platform explosion off the coast of Scotland in 1988, in which 167 people died, contained the following statement:
Workers did not want to put their continued employment in jeopardy through raising a safety issue that might embarrass management.
What is striking is the regularity of such remarks in inquiry reports following all the major disasters and frauds of recent times.
The Herald of Free Enterprise catastrophe in 1987, in which 193 people died, could have been prevented if employee concerns about the safety of the bow doors had been taken seriously. The collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International in 1991 as a result of massive fraud might have been avoided if there had not been a management culture that made employees fearful of speaking up and if the lone internal auditor who did raise concerns had not been made redundant.
The systematic misdiagnosis of bone tumour cases at Birmingham's Royal Orthopaedic hospital over several years could have been prevented if it had been easier for consultants to speak up about their doubts and have them properly investigated. The death of four children in the Lyme bay canoeing disaster might never have happened if the warning letters sent by two instructors to the chief executive of the centre a year earlier had been heeded and acted upon.
Those are the headline cases, with major inquiries and reports, and they make a compelling pattern. What they tell us is that if employees, who know more about what is going on inside organisations than anyone else, are prevented through fear and insecurity from speaking out when they find examples of fraud, abuse, illegality, danger or misconduct, the public interest is not adequately protected.
That is the view taken recently by the Nolan committee, in its recommendations on the civil service and on quangos. It is also the view of the Audit Commission, which has identified information from staff as by far the single most important factor in exposing fraud and corruption in the national health service. It also found that a third of the NHS staff whom it interviewed would take no action in the face of impropriety because of fears of losing their job if they rocked the boat.
The Government have now inserted a whistleblowing clause into the current Pensions Bill in the wake of the Maxwell fraud, to put a duty upon auditors and actuaries to speak up about malpractice to the regulatory authority. So there is a public interest in whistleblowing, yet there is no effective protection for whistleblowers. The names of Chris Chapman, Graham Pink and Helen Zeitlin testify


to the consequences that have befallen the brave people who have tried to raise concerns about the national health service.
In my constituency, there is a nurse who from time to time puts information about the local health service under my door in the dead of night because she, or he, does not feel secure enough to do that any other way. It cannot be right for employees of any organisation to feel that they cannot raise issues openly, just as it cannot be right to impose gagging clauses in contracts to prevent people from speaking out.
In order to understand why protection for whistleblowers is so necessary, I ask the House to consider some of the many cases dealt with by the excellent independent charity Public Concern at Work whose assistance, along with that of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, has been indispensable in preparing the Bill. Here were people who knew that the public interest required them to raise issues, but who feared, and in many cases suffered, the consequences of doing that.
There were the fairground workers who believed that the rides were unsafe; there was the charity worker who believed that money was being misappropriated; then there was the HGV driver told to ignore the tachograph; the care worker worried about abuse in the nursing home; and the defence industry worker made redundant for drawing attention to the misspending of £500,000 of public money. Finally, there was the insurance company branch manager who came to the House yesterday to tell his own story. He was harassed, bullied and made ill, then made redundant, for revealing that regulatory rules were being breached. It is such people who would be helped by the Bill.
The duty of confidentiality is the normal rule in employment relationships, and so it should be. There is nothing in the Bill to offer protection to disgruntled employees who make unsubstantiated malicious allegations. That should be made clear. So should the normal obligation on employees to raise concerns through the proper internal channels in the first instance. The Bill is emphatically not a whingers or malcontents charter.
However, the Bill would protect people who need protection—those who raise important issues in good faith without desire for reward, believing them to be genuine,

and who have already raised their concerns internally, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. Those are the public interest whistleblowers, and the public interest must protect them from dismissal, reprisals and discrimination. The Bill will protect them, but it will protect the rest of us, too.
The courts have long recognised the need to balance the duty of confidence against the wider public interest. The legal maxim that there is no confidence in iniquity was coined in 1856. But that recognition has not provided protection for those who need it. The cloak of confidence has been used to conceal things that ought not to be concealed, and to strike fear, and sometimes worse, into those who would dare to lift that cloak in the public interest.
As well as protecting people who are currently unprotected, the Bill would send a positive message to all organisations and employers. There must be proper systems through which concerns can be raised, for that would bring benefits for all. It is in no one's interests to have malpractice undiscovered and abuses unattended to. We need a new culture of openness and responsibility. We need to attack abuses, not to punish those who try to bring them to light. And we must not wait until there is another scandal or disaster.
I believe that the Bill to protect whistleblowers has wide support in the House. I know that it has wide support outside. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Tony Wright, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Giles Radice, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Jeff Rooker and Ms Tessa Jowell.

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

Dr. Tony Wright accordingly presented a Bill to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of victimisation; to invalidate any insurance taken out against such action; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Orders of the Day — Environment Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 18

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS FOR SEPA

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may—

(a) establish environmental targets for the purpose of protecting or enhancing the environment or securing the favourable conservation status of any flora or fauna,
(b) by serving a notice on SEPA, specify any environmental target for it to achieve and the date for its achievement.

(2) The Secretary of State shall publish each notice served on SEPA under subsection (1)(b) above in such a manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons interested or likely to be affected by it.
(3) Where the Secretary of State has established environmental targets he may review those targets if—

(a) five years or more have elapsed since the service of the notice under subsection (2) of this section; or
(b) SEPA, after consultation with such persons as it considers appropriate, requests a review;

and the Secretary of State shall not exercise his power to establish targets by varying the existing targets except in consequence of such a review.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of SEPA to exercise the powers conferred on him or it under any relevant enactment in such a manner as ensures, so far as is practicable by the exercise of those powers to do so, that the environmental targets specified in a notice under subsection (1)(b) above are achieved at all times.'.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 260, in clause 30, page 26, line 33, leave out second 'to' and insert 'only to those strategic'.

Mr. Galbraith: I welcome the brief appearance here by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He and I spent a most enjoyable time considering the previous environment Bill from the Scottish Office—the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill. The Minister will be interested to know that the definition of sustainability that we discussed then at great length was debated at great length during the Committee stage of this Bill. We are no further forward and we have not resolved the matter. This time, we have not dipped into Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" or any of the erudite matters that we dealt with last time.
The new clause is yet another attempt to try to beef up the functions of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. One of the things that we cannot understand is why the Government have set up simply a pollution control agency and not an environmental protection agency. Although SEPA is known as an environmental protection agency, it is, in fact, only a pollution control agency, unlike the Environment Agency, which will handle many functions.
The Environment Agency will have a duty to protect and enhance the environment. No such duty is laid on SEPA. The Secretary of State will only issue guidelines to which the agency will have regard. That produces a problem in that we shall have two agencies—Scottish Natural Heritage, which will be responsible for protecting and enhancing the environment, the natural heritage and flora and fauna, and seeking to enhance enjoyment in the countryside, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Although there many be some cross-fertilisation between the two, they will never link in the centre, leaving a channel in which the environment is improperly protected. The new clause is intended to deal with that problem and that is why we would like to set up environmental quality audits and other procedures.
The Minister will probably have certain arguments in his brief and I ask him not to go through them again. First, I hope that he does not tell me that the new clause is unworkable. If that is written in his brief, I hope that he will get his civil servants to change it for him. The new clause is not unworkable. The words used are already used in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. If we have already used the words in that Act, we can use them here. The Minister should bear it in mind that the new clause uses the words
so far as is practicable".
It would be wrong of the Minister to tell us that the new clause was unworkable.
Secondly, I ask the Minister not to say that we are dealing with the matter the wrong way round. If that argument is in his brief, he should not read it out. We are not dealing with the matter the wrong way round. The Minister may suggest that the matter can be handled by guidelines. I have read the draft guidelines and I believe that they are hardly worth the paper they are written on. There is all the usual stuff about acting efficiently and effectively and to the highest possible standards, as if we would set up an agency that acted to the lowest possible standards. We do not believe that guidelines are a sufficient basis, although, if we saw some really strong guidelines, we might change our mind.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister not to say that my proposals overlap with Scottish Natural Heritage. They most manifestly do not. Scottish Natural Heritage has powers and SEPA will have powers, but the two do not overlap. I shall give some examples. SEPA will have powers in relation to water abstraction and water drainage, but really only in terms of pollution control. It will not have powers in relation to water extraction and drainage in terms of the effect on wildlife habitats. That is a function of Scottish Natural Heritage and not of SEPA. SEPA cannot use its powers to prevent extraction or drainage except in the case of, for example, a site of special scientific interest.
The same is the case for eutrophication and acidification. They can be considered by SEPA, but only in relation to pollution control and not in relation to conservation and enhancement of the environment. When Scottish Natural Heritage considers them, it can do so only in relation to sites of special scientific interest. It has no powers of control over those matters.
Although, by the year 2003, the Government will have implemented a 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur emissions, a Scottish Natural Heritage report has shown that 20 per cent. of Scottish sites of special scientific interest will still be at risk from acidification. It also


estimates that 50 SSSI lochs are suffering from acidification. They include Loch Doon, Merrick Kells lochs and the Cairngorm lochs.
4.45 pm
Furthermore, water quality problems in sites of special scientific interest are often more attributable to diffuse resources than point source pollution. SNH has suggested that there are a minimum of 28 SSSI waters that need improvements to reverse the decline in nature conservation. They include: Montrose basin, Angus; Rescobie and Balgavies lochs, Angus; Castle loch, Annandale and Eskdale; Mill loch, Annandale and Eskdale; Eden estuary, Fife; Loch of Skene, Gordon; Ythan estuary, Gordon; Loch Spynie, Moray; Cran loch, Nairn; Loch of Harray, Orkney; Loch Leven, Perth and Kinross; Carlingwark loch, Stewartry; Milton loch, Stewartry; and Lake of Menteith, Stirling. For the benefit of Hansard, I shall provide a list afterwards.
The point that I am trying to make is that the conservation problems of acidification and eutrophication cannot be dealt with by SNH. It has no powers over pollution control. It can deal only with pollution that occurs in sites of special scientific interest. The problem with the body that has the powers to handle pollution control, SEPA, is that it only has to have regard to the environment and has no duty to protect and enhance it. Though the two bodies may mingle, they are not locked together and there is a channel in the middle where the environment is improperly protected. For that reason, I put forward the new clause and hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall make a brief intervention. I concur argument of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), but I want to try to focus the Minister's attention on a slightly different issue.
There is concern that the powers that the Bill confers on a Secretary of State could be used in an untoward way if the power to issue guidance, and for the agency to be required to pay attention to that guidance, started to be used intrusively in a way that affected the operational decisions of and stance taken by the agency. There is legitimate concern that, if that happened, the agency would have no discretion or mind of its own and would not be able to tackle its work in its own way because of possible interference from on high through the powers that the Secretary of State is given by the Bill.
Amendment No. 260 would clarify the position by inserting the word "strategic". People understand and fully accept that, if the Government have decided to go down the route of creating the agency, the Secretary of State is properly entitled to have a strategic overview and to set the terms and objectives of the targets that have to be achieved by the agency. However, the Government should not thereafter interfere operationally on a day-to-day basis in a way that would become intrusive. I hope that the Minister will accept that.
The Bill has caused a great deal of concern to people with whom I have talked about the intrusive way in which the Secretary of State's powers might be used. It would be extremely useful if the Minister could say exactly how he envisages the Secretary of State using his powers and what are the proper ways for him to set objectives and

targets and give guidance. In so doing, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance to those who have raised such questions with me.
To all intents and purposes, the guidance notes mirror the requirement that will be placed on the Government to use the negative or affirmative resolution procedure with statutory instruments, so I do not understand why the Government did not accept the same method for setting targets for the agency. If they adopted the statutory instrument procedure to set strategic targets, it would to some extent console those who have expressed concern because they would have an absolutely transparent method of checking whether the Secretary of State's powers were being used sensibly and strategically or to interfere in operations.
I hope that the Government accept that there is a real problem and that the Minister will be able to say something that will give some comfort to those who share my concerns and who made representations to me when the Bill was in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I do, indeed, recall the debate on sustainability. I think that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) questioned my use of the phrase "sustainable development". I shall adopt not the arguments that he thought I would adopt, but some different ones.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency's functions are different from those of a pollution control agency. For example, it will have more functions in relation to air quality and waste strategy. It will not, of course, have the National Rivers Authority's wider responsibilities for water resources because Scotland's geography and the pressures on Scotland's aquatic environment do not warrant the same approach as in England and Wales.
I do not for a moment accept that SEPA is powerless in relation to acidification. Under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provides for integrated pollution control, BATNEEC—best available technology not entailing excessive cost—may take account of the effects of the prescribed processes on the local natural environment, including any upland areas with soil sensitive to acidification.
Most of what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is seeking to achieve can be achieved through existing legislation or through provisions already included in the Bill. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under section 3(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to establish any environmental medium-quality objectives or quality standards in relation to any substances that may be released into that or any other medium from any process.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also has specific powers in relation to water under section 30C of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and he will acquire further powers through the provisions in the Bill. In particular, the provisions in clause 56, which relate to contaminated land, will allow him to issue guidance to authorities on the identification of contaminated land and the standards to which that land is to be remediated. Similarly, under clause 79, my right hon. Friend will have a duty to prepare and publish a national air quality strategy, which must include statements on standards


relating to the quality of air and objectives for the restriction of the levels at which particular substances are present in the air.
In addition, clause 30 gives general powers requiring my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give guidance with respect to aims and objectives. Those objectives would include the sort of environmental targets that are probably envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, although targets to secure the favourable conservation status of any flora and fauna appear to be more a matter for Scottish Natural Heritage than for SEPA.
There is, of course, a practical objection to the new clause, which is that it might lead to an unbalanced approach if SEPA is expected to achieve overall targets requiring joint action. An example is urban air quality. In the case of fuel emissions from vehicles, the main responsibility would lie with local authorities. SEPA would have powers to limit only industrial emissions, which, by themselves, could achieve such a target only if disproportionate restrictions were placed on industry. The consequences would be a heavy extra burden on local industries that are already tightly regulated, yet the new clause envisages environmental quality targets that SEPA must achieve by itself. Joint co-operation would be required between local authorities and SEPA.
Amendment No. 260, to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke, requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue guidance to SEPA under clause 30 in respect of its strategic aims and objectives. I have some sympathy with that, but the amendment is unnecessary. We certainly intend that the guidance will be of a general and strategic nature. I am sure that that is clear for the draft guidance that we have issued under clause 30. We would not want to issue guidance to SEPA on individual cases—for example, specific applications for an integrated pollution control authorisation.
The amendment would add little to the present clause and is open to more practical objections, as it leaves unclear what is or is not an aim or objective of a strategic nature. The guidance will, of course, be subject to statutory consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. If it is believed that the guidance that we plan to issue is too specific, I am sure that that will come to light during either of those stages. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Members will not press the new clause and the amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his reply and I am grateful that he did not go through all the arguments that I suggested. He obviously dropped them from his brief. He tried to slip in one argument that is unworkable, however—something to do with air pollution control, emissions from cars and so forth, saying that the change would be too costly. I think that that was the general train of his argument.
The Under-Secretary forgets that the Government insisted on keeping provisions for a cost-benefit analysis on the face of the Bill—it was the subject of one of our big debates—which deals with his argument about cost. Although he tried to slip in the unworkability argument, therefore, it is not true.
The Under-Secretary also took us around the panoply of powers open to the Secretary of State when dealing with the matter. The trouble is that those powers relate to pollution control. As an aside, I must point out that waste regulation is a part of pollution control. It was suggested that SEPA is now more than a pollution control agency, because it has powers over waste regulation, but that is not the argument. SEPA does not have powers over the environment. That is the problem and it is a problem that the Government did not address.
When the Under-Secretary took us around the panoply of the Secretary of State's powers, he did not give us much information on his right hon. Friend's views on environmental targets. Under certain parts of the Bill, the Secretary of State will have powers to produce guidelines about having regard to the environment and its enhancement, but the Bill does not give SEPA a duty to protect and enhance the environment. I have seen the draft guidelines and they are so weak as to be worthless for the environment.
Clearly, the Government are not going to take great strides forward, but this is not an issue on which we should divide the House now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 28

WATER ABSTRACTION LICENCES

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Agency to review any licence (and the conditions (if any) to which the licences are subject) which is referred to as a licence of right in section 33 of the Water Resources Act 1963, or Schedule 26 of the Water Act 1989, if such a licence has not been reviewed since the Water Act 1989;
(2) the licences as given in subsection (1) above shall be reviewed in pursuance of the Agency's duties under section 7 of this Act. If a licence so reviewed is considered to be inconsistent with the Agency's duties under section 7 of this Act, the Agency may make proposals for revoking or varying that licence;
(3) the review period specified under subsection (2) above shall be a period not more than five years from the time the Agency is set up.—[Mr. Matthew Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 259, in clause 33, page 28, line 44, at end add
'; and to have special regard to controlling the abstraction of water from rivers, watercourses and inland water.'.
No. 246, in schedule 22, page 309, line 18, at the end insert—
'(6A) A drought permit which—

(a) authorises the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to a site of special scientific interest; or
(b) suspends or modifies—

(i) a restriction as respects the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to a site of special scientific interest; or
(ii) an obligation to discharge compensation water into a site of special scientific interest or into any river or stream which forms part of, or from which water is supplied to, a site of special scientific interest



shall not be issued without the consent of the Nature Conservancy Council for England (English Nature) with respect to SSSIs in England or the Countryside Council for Wales with respect to SSSIs in Wales.'.

Mr. Taylor: The new clause would require the Environment Agency to carry out a systematic review of all water extraction licences, to give it an opportunity to remedy those that are damaging the environment. As a result of licences granted by way of right under the Water Resources Act 1963, there are many cases of over-extraction. Those licences were not granted with any consideration for the environmental impact. As a result, the licence system has caused great environmental damage.
According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for example, species and habitats in more than 100 sites of special scientific interest in 40 rivers are suffering as a result of over-extraction. It also creates difficulties in reallocating water between users, as the balance between demand and supply becomes more difficult.
The Environment Agency is given the duties to further nature conservation and to regulate abstraction licences, many of which have been granted with no consideration for their environmental impact. The difficulty is that conflict between the two duties is inevitable. Therefore, the amendment recommends that the agency be required to review all abstraction licences formally within five years of their being set up while taking into account its environmental duties. If the review shows that a licence is causing environmental damage, the licence will be revoked or varied.
The Government may argue that such an approach would cut across the system set up by the National Rivers Authority which requires the authority to inspect 2,000 highly critical licences and about 13,000 critical licences every year. But the system set up by the NRA is for abstraction enforcement, or to ensure that licence holders are not operating outside the conditions of the licence that has been granted. The amendment seeks to review the conditions and the form that the abstraction licence takes. That is a different matter, and relates to the environmental problems that I have described.
5 pm
The NRA has reviewed just 207 out of a possible 48,000 licences in the five years of its existence, so it has not even touched on the problem. We need a more systematic approach to reviewing the environmental impact of abstraction licences, and the new clause gives the agency a duty to take such an approach.
Amendment No. 247 simply aims to ensure that statutory conservation agencies are consulted on drought orders. Drought permits allow water to be taken from water bodies that may supply sites of special scientific interest. That can be damaging, and the amendment seeks to ensure that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are consulted, and consent to, the granting of drought permits which may cause damage to SSSIs.
SSSIs are identified only because they are of national importance—not individually, but collectively. In other words, it is not question of being able to spare one or two sites. They are all of importance, and to damage them in such a way without consulting English Nature or the CCW would be wrong. The bodies have expert knowledge of the SSSI involved and the importance of water to them. That knowledge is vital in ensuring that drought permits

do not cause serious and permanent damage to such sites. The amendments are not far reaching and I hope that the Minister will accept them, given his stated commitment to the importance of SSSIs.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Much later today—I hope that we will get around to it before we are too tired—we will be talking about the new duties placed on the Environment Agency in terms of the conservation of water. I believe that the new clause is a helpful element of the duties, because the more that is known about the water industry, the more it becomes obvious that conservation must take place at every level in the water cycle. That applies whether we are talking about water from rivers, water leaking from pipes or water used for drinking and for gardens.
The new clause is a helpful way of giving the agency a systematic approach to its review of abstraction licences. There were serious problems in the River Darent about which considerable concern was expressed in Parliament, and at least 40 sites were identified by the NRA as having no flows. The new clause goes some way towards emphasising the precautionary principle that we have been stressing during debates on the Bill. It provides a means of checking abstraction licences regularly, and it may well be an operational system that the agency would welcome.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to speak to amendment No. 259, which stands in my name. I wish also to concur with the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who spoke in support of the new clause.
The Minister will recognise that the problem does not just exist south of the border and that it is also a Scottish problem. I hope that, when he responds to the debate on this group, he will address some remarks to the problem that faces Scotland. Clause 33 sets out the general duties of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency with respect to water. Clause 33(1)(b) states that it shall be the duty of SEPA
to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of Scotland.
What is that supposed to mean?
The Minister may say that amendment No. 259 is unnecessary because the legal powers contained in those words enable, for example, the River Tweed purification board—or its successor as the regional board of the agency—to take a firm stance on water abstraction in the Tweed valley basin. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to give that assurance, I shall be content.
As somebody who, in a previous incarnation, was merely a simple provincial solicitor north of the border, I do not believe that the words in clause 33 would give me the confidence to expect that the successor body to the River Tweed purification board—whose members have carried out excellent work—will have the power to control abstraction to the extent that it would like.
To that extent, amendment No. 259 would strengthen the Bill, and it would not cost the Government anything to allow it. Were the amendment to be made, it would give comfort to many people who are concerned with important water abstraction matters north of the border. The amendment would assure them that the powers


available for the SEPA regional boards will flow from the agency, in order to control some of the problems in the future.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The excellent new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) deals with the conditions applicable to water abstraction licences, and gives us an opportunity to deal with the specific legal anomaly which has caused difficulty to a number of people around the country and upon which I had an Adjournment debate some time ago.
The current state of the law is thus: if an abstraction licence is applied for as a result of a wholly negligent survey, as long as the abstractor abstracts the water on land that he owns, he is not liable to compensate any neighbour for any damage caused to any land or buildings affected as a result of the abstraction. A number of my constituents in a little hamlet called Fron near Welshpool have had the unhappy experience of seeing their houses crack and their gardens collapse and, in one field, a hole the size of two double-decker buses appear. Unfortunately, the abstraction was carried out on land owned by the water plc concerned. A study of both case and statutory law shows that the people affected would have great difficulty obtaining compensation through the courts and, at the very least, would therefore require a precedent to be overturned in the House of Lords. That cannot be right.
Surely we should not be giving water plcs a protection that was intended for publicly owned undertakings and that was created 80 or 90 years ago. Surely it is a matter of common sense and fair government that, if someone's garden is destroyed or house damaged as a result of water abstraction, that person should be compensated for his uninsured losses, at the very least.
The new clause provides the potential for imposing on every water abstraction licence the condition that, if damage is caused to land or buildings as a result of negligence, compensation should be payable.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is aware, the National Rivers Authority inspects annually more than a third of all abstraction licences as a matter of routine. In addition, a number of studies are being, or have been, carried out into potentially damaging abstractions and the number of licences involved. The NRA's approach to reviewing licences is based on a technical methodology that has been developed to screen and prioritise those licences in most urgent need of review. We consider that that approach is cost-effective and puts limited resources to the best use in solving environmental problems caused by licences of right.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: It is important that the Minister makes the point that the general review to which he referred relates only to the enforcement of conditions. The second review, over five years, related to only 200 or so of the 48,000 licences. That suggests that the main cost-effectiveness of the NRA's approach lies in the fact that it hardly ever carries out the necessary checks.

Mr. Atkins: Alternatively, it could be that, when the NRA checks, it finds that there are not many licences to worry about.
The new clause would be counter-productive, as it would draw resources away from those areas that are known to be at risk in order to review all licences of right, although the bulk of those are likely to remain unaffected as a result of such a review. In addition, any proposals to revoke or vary licences as suggested in the new clause would have significant compensation implications for the agency. The five-year review represents an uncosted programme that it may be impossible to deliver within acceptable budgets.
Amendment No. 246 would make it a condition that the NCC in England and the Countryside Council for Wales must give their consent before a drought permit can be issued that either abstracts from or suspends restrictions or compensatory discharge obligations from a source of water that may have a direct effect on an SSSI. That would be unnecessary, as the NRA already has environmental duties in respect of SSSIs under section 17 of the Water Resources Act 1991. Those duties should adequately safeguard the interests of the NCC and the Countryside Council for Wales and have regard to actions taken in an emergency, which could include drought conditions.
As regards amendment No. 259, our broad objective in the Bill is to transfer to SEPA the current powers of the river purification authorities to control abstractions of water used for irrigation for commercial agriculture and horticulture in areas of Scotland where it can be shown that water resources are at risk from pollution or depletion from over-abstraction.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked a question about clause 33(1)(b), which re-enacts an existing duty on river purification authorities. As such, it would not extend SEPA powers in relation to water abstraction.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 1 November his intention to bring forward legislation to introduce enhanced, but still selective, abstraction controls in Scotland. New legislation will be brought forward in the light of progress with the European Commission's action programme on groundwater, on which proposals are nearing completion, to ensure compatibility. I trust that that answers the hon. Gentleman and that he will not press his new clause.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The problem with the Minister's comments is his suggestion that the programme in which the NRA is already involved means that the worst cases are identified. The NRA's general reviews relate only to the enforcement of conditions. The number of reviews that it undertakes relating to the problems that may arise within those conditions—because the environmental effects were not originally taken into account—is so small that it cannot possibly identify all the problem cases.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to problems in his constituency that have affected householders and landowners. It is important that a proper process of review is put in place to protect such people; otherwise, the Minister may find that the result of his comments will be that they are told, "The Government are not interested in your problem." That may make them angry, if they have not already disappeared down holes the size of double-decker buses—which may well be the Minister's solution.
I do not think that there is any purpose in pushing the new clause to a Division. However, I ask the Minister to reconsider. If he says that five years is too fast, perhaps 10 years might be more appropriate. A systematic review should be put in place so that people and the environment do not continue to suffer.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

Amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 2, line 8, after first 'Agency' insert
'or, in Welsh, Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd'.—[Sir Paul Beresfardl]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 233, in page 2, line 8, leave out from first 'Agency' to end of line 10 and insert
'for England, to exercise in relation to England the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act; and there shall be a body corporate to be known as the Environment Protection Agency for Wales or, in Welsh, Asiantaeth i Warchod yr Amgylchedd yng Nghymru, to exercise in relation to Wales the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act.
(2) Any duty, power or function given to or imposed upon 'the Agency' by this Act shall be a duty, power or function of the Environment Agency for England or the Environmental Protection Agency for Wales as the case may be, and the term 'the Agency' shall be construed accordingly.'.
No. 250, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'Agency' to end of line 10 and insert
'for England, to exercise in relation to England the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act; and
(b) a body corporate to be known as the Environment Protection Agency for Wales, to exercise in relation to Wales the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act.'.
No. 251, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
'(1A) Any duty, power or function given to or imposed upon "the Agency" by this Act shall be a duty, power or function of the Environment Agency for England or the Environment Protection Agency for Wales as the case may be; and the term "the Agency" shall be construed accordingly.'.
No. 258, in clause 12, page 14, line 23, leave out
'wholly or mainly of, or of most of,'
and insert 'of'.

Mr. Nick Ainger: We accept amendment No. 40. Unfortunately, on the advice that we have been given, we will have to vote against it, as otherwise our amendment No. 233 would contradict it. Therefore, if the Minister does not accept our amendment, we will divide the House on amendment No. 40.
Amendment No. 233 would create an environment protection agency for Wales. In establishing such an agency, we would again be recognising that Wales is a nation with its own distinct identity, culture, language and political climate. We would also be recognising and endorsing the devolution of responsibilities to Wales that has taken place since the Welsh Office was established in 1965.
In addition, we would be recognising that Wales has a range of environmental protection problems and environmentally sensitive areas in close proximity, which simply are not replicated anywhere in England. Health, education, transport, economic and industrial development, all local government expenditure, agriculture, employment and training, housing and environmental services have all been devolved to Wales over the past 30 years. However, the problem is that the people of Wales do not yet control those devolved services.
Until Monday of this week, they were controlled by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—who, I understand, is claiming to be the new saviour of the Tory party come the next general election, if he is successful in the ballot next Tuesday. I have some information in which the Prime Minister's campaign team may be interested—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will refer specifically to the amendments before us.

Mr. Ainger: I want to describe the democratic deficit in Wales, as shown by the statistics. In May, the new unitary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear about which amendment mentions democratic deficit; it does not come immediately to mind.

Mr. Ainger: This illustrates why the Labour party believes that we need to establish an environmental agency in Wales. We need to resolve democratic deficit issues as a result of the transfer of local authority functions away from local councils in Wales to an agency based in England.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the people of rural Wales regard themselves as the legitimate custodians of the Welsh countryside and feel a strong resentment when they see the Government enacting a Bill that effectively removes from them the management of their own countryside? That point gathers strength when one considers the effect of the conduct of the former Secretary of State for Wales in relation to the Countryside Council for Wales.

Mr. Ainger: I endorse the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments, particularly his last comment, given that, on 5 May, the then Secretary of State for Wales sought to cut the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales by some 16 per cent.
In the May elections, 1,273 councillors were elected on boundaries that had been established by the Secretary of State for Wales. Of those councillors, 731 were Labour, 310 were independents, 113 were Plaid Cymru, 78 were Liberal Democrat and only 41—less than 4 per cent.—were Conservative. That illustrates not only the stewardship and success of the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the support of the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already appealed to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he wrote his speech before he came to the Chamber, but a persuasive Member of Parliament such as the hon. Gentleman should be flexible enough to adjust his speech as he goes along.

Mr. Ainger: I shall immediately adjust my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that that classically


illustrates the democratic deficit that exists in Wales. It is incumbent on the Government to be sensitive to that democratic deficit and continue to devolve powers to Wales.
In response to a similar debate in Committee, the Minister argued that the Government could not accede to the establishment of an environment protection agency for Wales because the problems that would need to be addressed by such an agency were common to England and Wales and the agency would need to develop and apply common solutions. But are there not common problems and solutions with regard to health, which has been devolved to Wales? The same argument applies to education and agriculture, which have also been devolved to Wales. Those are complex issues and the Government must explain why environmental protection in Wales, which is also a complex issue, has not been devolved. Why cannot it be treated in the same way as the education of our children or the delivery of health care? I hope that the Minister will respond to those questions.
If an agency were established in Wales, it would have almost 1,000 staff dealing exclusively with environmental protection issues. Will the Minister explain why an agency of that size would not be as effective as the Welsh Office, which currently has some 2,795 staff? If it were based in Wales, the new agency would have almost half the number of staff of the Welsh Office. The Welsh Office is responsible for health, transport, education and the other matters that I listed. Will the Minister explain why an agency of half its size could not respond to the needs of Wales in the same way as the Welsh Office has over the past 30 years?
The Minister must appreciate that, given that the Bill removes powers from local councils, covering waste management in particular, Wales is losing even more responsibilities from accountable local government. Moreover, it is simply unacceptable to have only one Welsh representative on the central agency board, or what will effectively be a powerless regional advisory committee. That is no substitute for an environment protection agency for Wales.
I urge the Minister to accept our amendment; otherwise, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we shall divide the House on this issue.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I strongly support amendment No. 233. I shall refer to amendments Nos. 250 and 251, which are tabled in my name. While I am at it, I shall also speak to amendment No. 258, which deals with the agency's regional structure.
We are all aware that this issue was debated on Second Reading and extensively in Committee. The case for an environmental protection agency for Wales was ably presented in the other place by Lord Prys-Davies. Although the case was effectively put at all those stages, it would be wrong if we did not fight the issue to the last ditch. To give Wales second-class status—that is what it amounts to—compared with Scotland is as offensive in this regard as in any other, and it will be keenly felt in Wales. I hope that I shall be forgiven for introducing a small note of dissention on the Opposition Benches when I say that the Labour party needs to understand the issue in relation to its proposals for

devolution to Wales. If the Labour party does not understand that now, I am afraid that it will have to learn that lesson, to its cost, at a later stage.
The people of Wales want to be governed by bodies established in Wales. It is as simple as that. There is no justification for differentiating in practical terms between an environmental agency for Wales and the other all-Wales bodies that exist in similar and different areas. There is every reason to argue that the integration of environmental policy into all areas, which is a fundamental principle, would be far more effectively achieved if we had a separate agency for Wales. Such an agency would have the status of a national body and a range of expertise at its disposal, and should set its own priorities, which would differ in many ways from the priorities of an English or English and Welsh agency.
The Minister claimed in Committee that it would be difficult for a Welsh agency to develop the same expertise as its English counterpart or an England and Wales agency. I found that somewhat impertinent. There is ample expertise in Wales on environmental issues to ensure that an agency would be thoroughly effective.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Including in the universities.

Mr. Dafis: Indeed, the expertise is in the universities, and elsewhere.
If the Minister's observations are based on economies of scale, they would apply equally to all-Wales bodies and the implication would be that they could all be abolished and subsumed within an England and Wales body.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): indicated assent.

Mr. Dafis: I notice that some members of the Government are nodding their approval of that suggestion. That should be noted carefully in Wales. It will not do much good to the remaining few votes that the Conservative party has in Wales. That argument is in favour of centralism, and it fails to understand the enormous advantages of organisations operating within a smaller geographical area in close co-operation with other organisations within that area. In Committee, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) argued effectively that it is perfectly possible to have common standards between different agencies. In any case, that will increasingly have to apply on a European level.
5.30 pm
The argument that the direction of river flows requires one responsible organisation does not hold water, if I may be forgiven for using such an expression. It would be perfectly possible to establish working arrangements for close liaison and co-operation between two agencies for particular river basins, just as such arrangements exist between countries through which a river flows. The Rhine is a good example.
The suspicion must be that the real reason for not having an environmental agency for Wales is the fear that quangos—a dirty word currently—have a tendency to become genuinely quasi-autonomous, as their name suggests, by setting their own priorities and agendas. An environmental agency for Wales would be subject to the same process, which would be inconvenient to many an English Secretary of State for Wales. As has already been


said, the efforts that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) directed at the Countryside Council for Wales were a perfect example of that effect.
The Government must also face the reality that the Environment Agency will have to deal, sooner or later, with an all-Wales democratic body, albeit, possibly, the inadequate assembly currently proposed by the Labour party. That agency and the assembly would have to deal with each other, and that is a further compelling reason for establishing a separate agency for Wales.
We should have not merely a separate environment agency for Wales, but a separate Bill, which would be of a different nature from that currently before the House. The national parks would be dealt with in a different, radical manner if there were such a Bill for Wales, as would waste management, and it would have made a crucial contribution to the preparation of a sustainable development strategy for Wales. Unlike its Scottish counterpart, there is not yet even an all-Wales advisory group on sustainable development.
A Welsh environment agency would offer some small compensation for the absence of a thorough-going, all-Wales approach to environmental legislation. That mechanism would in some degree contribute to the process of preparing a sustainable development strategy for Wales according to Welsh priorities and needs.
I have a strong suspicion that the Government will be obdurate on the matter, but perhaps they could at least do us a courtesy now, by offering us an assurance that Wales will be given the status of a region on the basis of its long-established territorial boundaries. That is the purpose of my amendment No. 258. The Government should at least do us the courtesy of ensuring that when one talks about the Welsh region, that means Wales, no more and no less. That view is strongly supported by public opinion in Wales. Anything less than that would be deeply unpopular and further damage the Conservative party's reputation as being hopelessly out of touch with the reality of life in Wales and the aspirations of Welsh people.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Any member of the Welsh public paying the extraordinary sum of £23.70 that is required to purchase the Bill, and who struggled through it and began to understand it, might be forgiven for thinking that Wales had been entirely forgotten by the Government. One suspects that Wales has been entirely forgotten by the Government, at least as a distinct entity and that they have decided to treat Wales simply as part of England, as they do so often.
When discussing the new clauses, we are, presumably, looking for the best way to achieve within Wales the principal aim of having such environmental agencies, as set out in clause 4(1). That aim is to
protect or enhance the environment
and also to attain
the objective of achieving sustainable development.
If, as has already been suggested in this short debate, it is not possible within Wales to achieve the competence or expertise necessary for a discrete Welsh environmental protection agency, I say on behalf of those working in connection with environmental matters in Wales and on behalf of the large Welsh academic community that that is complete twaddle.
One need only look at the constituent parts of the university of Wales, and particularly at the departments at the colleges at Bangor and Aberystwyth, to appreciate that

the expertise of their experts in environmental protection is widely used by those in England who are interested in such matters. I would go as far as to say that that expertise is widely used by people all over the world who are interested in environmental protection. That competence applies across the range of environmental issues, whether one is talking about oceanology or forestry, and everything in between. Wales can not only staff its own environmental protection agency, but offer, under contract, its specialists' expertise to the English Environment Agency, to help it out when it runs out of its necessary skills.
There is a troubling analogy to be drawn between the Bill and the economic development of Wales. The reaction of the people of Wales to the abolition of the Welsh Development Agency, despite its warts, when it was subsumed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a general point. We are discussing not new clauses, but specific amendments.

Mr. Carlile: I remind you, Sir, that amendment No. 233 and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) are designed to establish a separate environmental protection agency for Wales. The rationale for having such an agency for Wales is precisely the same as the rationale for having a separate Development Board for Rural Wales. If that development board were to be abolished today, as the former Secretary of State wished at one stage, and its work were subsumed under the Rural Development Commission, there would be a deficit in Wales of opportunity for rural development.
We believe that the environmental protection agency for Wales—were it to be a separate agency—could offer the same advantages to environmental protection and sustainable development in Wales as the development board has brought to the economic development of rural Wales. We also believe that a discrete Welsh agency could bring the same advantages to Wales as, remarkably, the WDA brought to north and to south Wales.
Other considerations powerfully assist in winning the argument that there should be a separate environmental agency for Wales. Rural Wales is still dominated by agriculture and, as is not the case in England, agriculture is the largest industry in Wales by a long way. It represents between 60 and 70 per cent. of the Welsh economy, although there is now some dispute about those figures. The figure was 70 per cent. when I entered the House 12 years ago. We are therefore talking about the protection not merely of the rural parts of the environment, which include agriculture, but of the environment that is worked by those involved in Wales's largest industry.
Wales needs a discrete environmental protection agency that is specifically empowered to marry together, and to compromise between, where necessary, those who work the environment, in a rapidly changing agricultural sector, and those who wish to protect the environment from some of the less attractive things that farmers do from time to time.
The farmers of rural Wales are actually very good environmentalists—after all, they have created the landscape that our very welcome visitors want to protect. One will not win their support by giving them an environmental protection agency that is English, that is


English-dominated and that brings its expertise from England. Furthermore, in the relationship between England and Wales there are environmentally competitive issues, such as the effect of the development of different types of power station in England and the way in which that might affect Wales, or the building of new motorways in England, which may provide access to Wales.
There should be a dynamic between the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment and other Government Departments such as the Department of Transport, which includes tension. That potential for dynamic tension is good for the people of Wales and it is good for the Government Departments involved. That dynamic tension would be usefully enhanced by the creation of a separate Welsh environmental protection agency, which would come under the overall control of the Welsh Office.
There is a great deal of rhetoric, perhaps especially during this frenetic period in our politics, about the need to bring government closer to the people. I applaud that; if politicians from any party are going to bring government closer to the people, that is a good thing. However, the Bill takes the management of environmental protection further from the people of Wales than it need be. An environmental protection agency for Wales would at least be regarded in Wales as taking proper account of the aspirations and needs of the people of Wales and of their environment.
For those reasons, I support the amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): As has been said, the issue of a separate Wales agency has been debated vigorously several times and we are not convinced that the needs of Wales would be best met by setting up separate agencies for England and Wales. The problems that the agency would need to tackle are common to England and Wales. The agency will need to develop and apply common solutions, and the job could not be carried out as effectively by two separate organisations, whatever liaison arrangements were set up.
A separate Welsh agency would not be able to develop the depth of expertise in certain aspects that would be allowed by a joint agency. I take an example. There are only 24 inspectorate of pollution staff for the Welsh region at the moment. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will accept that, in that regard, it would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the expertise in a separate agency of that size to be able to offer a level of service equal to that of a combined agency.

Mr. Carlile: As he is the Minister responding to the debate, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many visits he has made to Wales to brief himself on the issue that he is now speaking to? Is it none?

Sir Paul Beresford: I have visited Wales twice, not specifically for that purpose, but I am describing a rationale that I believe that it would be possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand. He obviously cannot.

Mr. Carlile: It is pretty difficult.

Mr. Ainger: On the subject of whether there is sufficient critical mass in HMIP, will the Minister tell us how many people are currently employed by the Countryside Council for Wales, which is a separate agency from English Nature, and why that is allowed to continue as a separate agency in Wales, yet he refuses to allow HMIP, together with the National Rivers Authority and all the waste management officials, to form one agency?

Sir Paul Beresford: I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are two alternative approaches. The approach that we are taking is that, where possible, if there is one agency, some functions will be able to become more localised. I shall mention that when I briefly discuss amendment No. 258. However, in some aspects of the agency's functions, the combination of the two in one agency would be far more effective.
One of the great benefits of the joint England and Wales agency, and one of its major aims, will be that it will operate to the same standard levels of regulation and it will provide consistent levels of quality of service throughout England and Wales. That has not been the case in the past—for example, in the regulation of waste management by local authorities--throughout England and Wales. A business operating in England and Wales will be subject to the same standards of regulation in each of its sites.

Mr. Dafis: I was wondering whether the same principle would apply in relation to Scotland. Is the Minister saying that the same standards will not apply as between England and Scotland? Or is it that he does not believe that it would matter if the same standards did not apply between England and Scotland?

Sir Paul Beresford: We discussed that earlier. Scotland has a different legal system and a different institutional history. It has no national river authority at present; it has separate river purification boards, and so on.
Waste management, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is but one aspect of the agency's whole service. I recognise, however, that the specific needs of Wales will have to be taken into account. The current provisions of the Bill aim to protect Welsh interests in several ways, building up the arrangements successfully put into practice by the National Rivers Authority, which was set up on a similar England and Wales basis.
The Secretary of State for Wales will be responsible for setting the policy framework in which the agency will discharge its functions in Wales, and will exercise an appellate role over the whole of Wales. The agency will report to him on the discharge of its functions in Wales. We shall ensure that Welsh Office Ministers will have an input into the policy and corporate planning process of the agency, and the arrangements for those will be defined in a memorandum of understanding between the agency and the Welsh Office.
The Secretary of State for Wales will be responsible for the appointment of one member to the agency board. [Interruption.] We have an acting Secretary of State for Wales at the moment. Welsh industries will be further protected by the existence of the advisory committee for Wales, which will be advised by the Secretary of State for Wales on issues relating to the agency.
Let us turn to Amendment No. 258. As has been said, the Welsh region consists of the whole of Wales and we are considering a number of proposals made by the Environment Agency advisory committee last week. Under those proposals, the regional environment protection agency advisory committee for Wales would include the whole of the geopolitical area of Wales.
I agree that Wales should have a strong identity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was said with a clear English accent. I also recognise the need to take account of the different operational requirements. The Government appreciate the need for recognition of the language and we therefore tabled amendment No. 40, which will confer a Welsh name on the agency.

Ms Joan Ruddock: Say it.

Sir Paul Beresford: I suspected that I would be asked to say it. As I am an ethnic minority immigrant with a naturalised British citizenship, it would be offensive to Welsh ears if I tried to pronounce it, and as unrealistic to ask me to do so as for me to ask some of the Welsh Members to spell Aotearoa.
The amendment will ensure that the agency has a Welsh name, which it will be able to use, as appropriate, from the moment of its establishment, rather than waiting to have a Welsh name conferred on it by the order under the Welsh Language Act 1993.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 230.

Division No. 181]
[5.48 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coe, Sebastian


Baldry, Tony
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Bates, Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Sir Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dunn, Bob


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs Angela
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Elletson, Harold


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David





Faber, David
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, Rt Hon David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Richards, Rod


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Legg, Barry
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John






Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sweeney, Walter
Waterson, Nigel


Sykes, John
Watts, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Willetts, David


Thomason, Roy
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Dr. Liam Fox.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Alton, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dafis, Cynog


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin-Walker, John
Denham, John


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kelvin
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Berry, Roger
Faulds, Andrew


Betts, Clive
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Boateng, Paul
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth Valley)
Gapes, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Garrett, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Gerrard, Neil


Chidgey, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Church, Judith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mildred


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grocott, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gunnell, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hain, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Hanson, David


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Henderson, Doug





Heppell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, Bill


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hodge, Margaret
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pearson, Ian


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Rendel, David


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jowell, Tessa
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Salmond, Alex


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sedgemore, Brian


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stetford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


Lynne, Ms Liz
Simpson, Alan


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Robert
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McMaster, Gordon
Straw, Jack


MacShane, Denis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Maddock, Diana
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marek, Dr John
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Touhig, Don


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Tyler, Paul


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wareing, Robert N


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Welsh, Andrew


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri
Wigley, Dafydd


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wise, Audrey


Mowlam, Marjorie
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wright, Dr Tony


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Murphy, Paul



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO THE AGENCY

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 255, in page 3, leave out lines 19 to 28.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 262, in clause 21, page 22, leave out lines 30 to 32.
No. 263, in page 22, leave out lines 46 to 48.
No. 265, in schedule 6, page 171, line 45, at end insert—

'15A—(1) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliaments provide for anything authorised or required by or under this Act or any other enactment, to be done by SEPA, to be carried Out by a local authority acting as agents of SEPA, within the area for which the said local authority has responsibility.
(2) An order made under sub-paragraph (1) above shall prescribe the extent of the powers and functions to be exercised by a particular local authority acting as agent for SEPA, and may also make provision for any legal or financial consequences arising out of such an agency arrangement.'.

Mr. Dafis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise again the appropriateness of local government retaining waste regulation functions, rather than transferring them to the new agency. The case for retention was ably made in Committee by the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson). The hon. Member for Hillsborough pointed out that transferring waste regulation functions to the agency would de-integrate environmental policies, rather than otherwise—particularly with regard to easy access by waste regulation officers to detailed planning aspects. Separating the two functions would be to de-integrate, when we should be encouraging greater integration.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough pointed out also the danger that such a transfer would diminish rather than strengthen public awareness of the environmental impact of any development when considered in detail locally. Integration is particularly relevant to Wales, where district councils are the waste regulation authorities and have a range of important environmental functions linked to waste regulation.
On Second Reading, I pointed out that in Wales, integration will be further strengthened with the creation of unitary authorities, which will have comprehensive planning powers from existing district and county councils. It is questionable whether the agency would have the presence on the ground that local authorities have, which enables them to respond adequately to public concern. I refer not only to environmental health and planning department officers but others and councillors, who are in close contact with their communities' everyday affairs. They are in a position to spot any failure to fulfil waste disposal functions and to remedy it. It is easy for them to communicate with environmental health officers, to ensure speedy action on matters of public interest.
The Council of Welsh Districts cites several instances of environmental quangos failing to respond in reasonable time to complaints by local people. In some cases, their local authority stepped in to perform functions that should have been performed by, for example, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
One questions also whether the agency will be anything like as accessible to the public and councillors as it should. Will it offer an urgent response service? HMIP does not provide one in Wales where local authorities do. The Council of Welsh Districts devised five principles that, if implemented, would help to secure an efficient service and on which I seek assurances from the Minister. The CWD insists on a high degree of autonomy for the Welsh region, based on political boundaries.
I thought that I detected recognition by the Minister in the last debate of the importance of the Welsh boundaries being the existing territorial boundaries, which are also the local government boundaries for Wales—but there was some ambiguity in one of his remarks. I would like his assurance that the Welsh region will be the whole of Wales—nothing more, nothing less.
There should be at least 10 local agency offices throughout Wales, so that it can maintain close contact with local authorities—one office for every two unitary authorities. There should also be total transparency of the agency's licensing, consents, authorisation and enforcement policies, as with local government. That issue was discussed to some extent in Committee but requires further clarification. Will the agency be adequately resourced? Will responsibility be delegated to front-line staff, to ensure effective action?
The CWD's fifth principle concerns accountability and representation of elected members on agency committees. I would be glad to hear the Minister's response, even though he has not been listening to a word that I have said, to each of those five principles. I was hoping for assurances on at least some of them. I hope that the Minister will be positive, although I cannot see how he can be. But if he is not, there is every prospect that waste regulation will be less effectively delivered as a result of the Bill and the establishment of an agency.

Mr. Kirkwood: I shall be brief. Will the Minister consider in a Scottish context the transfer of the regulatory responsibility for the system of local air pollution control from local authorities to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency? I have corresponded with Scottish Office Ministers on the issue and I certainly accept that there is a balanced argument about whether that responsibility should be left in the hands of local authorities or transferred. However, I should like to know the Government's exact position on the issue.
In a letter to me dated 31 May the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is currently gracing the Treasury Bench, made it clear that, as things stood at that time, the balance of the argument in the Government's mind was in favour of transferring control of the system of local air pollution to a centralised agency. Has the Government's view changed on that matter? The letter states that there are about 25 to 30 full-time officers dealing with such control in Scotland, and the Government's view was that with such a relatively small establishment it was better to centralise the responsibility. I take the opposite view.
My experience of my local authorities is that they have been extremely efficient in overseeing air pollution control. That is because they are on the spot and can respond quickly as they are only half a mile down the road from the problems that emerge. Local expertise and


the proximity of those councils to the problems will be lost if the control of air pollution is centralised in the agency.
Although there are 25 to 30 professional full-time officers operating in the field in Scotland, a great deal of other expertise has been built up because other staff who have been involved in a hands-on operational basis over many years form an in-house pool of skill and corporate knowledge. They can also anticipate some of the problem areas and identify incidents that may arise in their locality. Although they are not professional, they can bring common-sense expertise and local knowledge to bear on some of those problems.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): As I stated in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, the decision was finely balanced. We have not changed our view since the letter. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that SEPA will be a local as well as a national organisation. I think that it will have offices in numerous parts of Scotland, will exercise close control over what is happening and will be in close touch with local authorities. We worked on the matter carefully and thought that that was the best judgment although, of course, some local authorities disagree.

Mr. Kirkwood: That effectively knocks my gas to a small peep because that is precisely the answer that I had not solicited. That may be the Government's view, but the Minister knows that there is a body of opinion which does not share it. If the Minister's assurance is borne out in practice perhaps he will win the argument over time. But people will carefully monitor how the service is locally controlled. As the Minister has intervened so early in my speech, I need not argue the point any more. There is a clear difference of opinion, but we shall carefully watch this space in future.

Mr. James Wallace: I should like to speak to amendment No. 265, which is in this group and stands in my name. The amendment proposes to make provision for the functions and powers of SEPA to be carried by local authorities as its agents. Its purpose is to allow the Secretary of State to designate by order the islands councils as agents of SEPA. It is not intended to apply to the whole of Scotland. Under the new local government arrangements, the islands councils will no longer have their distinctive status. The amendment was drawn to take account of that. The fact that the Secretary of State will be able to exercise the function by way of an order means that he will be able to designate councils and the extent of their powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) pertinently observed that there was a need to retain common-sense expertise and local knowledge. That applies many times over to the islands areas.
6.15 pm
When, some time ago, the Scottish Office published its consultation paper on improving Scotland's environment, the foreword by the Secretary of State referred to striking improvements that had been achieved by the existing regulatory agencies over the past 15 years or so, and to the outstanding commitment and expertise of staff in the

river purification authorities, in local government and in the Scottish Office. With such expertise and with such plaudits, one wonders why we need a change.
The islands councils originally tried to resist the change and tried to persuade the Scottish Office, but they accept the inevitability of change. However, they wish to see the establishment of some form of agency with the councils carrying out environmental regulation on behalf of SEPA. The islands councils are different for one specific reason. Within their areas of jurisdiction they are responsible for river purification—a responsibility that is held by river purification authorities in other parts of Scotland—as well as the other pollution control functions which are the responsibility of local authorities in mainland Scotland.
To all intents and purposes, integrated pollution control has existed in the islands areas for some time. I am advised that such control applies to almost all premises in Shetland and that only a handful of the larger ones come under the remit of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. I understand that Shetland Islands Council is an agent for HMIPI in a number of important respects, including the taking of samples and the putting together of cases that require action under various legislation. Therefore, there is already an integrated approach.
The fear that has been expressed is that to transfer some functions from the islands to SEPA could lead to the break-up of the integrated approach. At the moment in Shetland, environmental protection is delivered by 12 or more staff. Six staff carry out SEPA functions, but their work on functions that would be transferred to SEPA is equivalent to three full-time posts. The fact that people who are in post carry out some of those functions means that there is adequate back-up for leave or for illness. That back-up, which includes an administrative element, would not exist if SEPA were a completely separate entity.
The cost would be lower if the council were an agent, and perhaps that is the kind of argument that appeals to the Government. It would also allow the good working relationship that has been built up with local industries over many years to continue because local officers know how to apply the regulations in a locally sensitive manner. It will allow access by council staff to the senior management of SEPA to ensure that policies which are relevant to the islands are applied with proper sensitivity.
It is fair to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Front Bench, and who has made numerous visits to the islands during his ministerial term of office, has, over that time—I know this from dealings with him—acquired some sensitivity to the number of respects in which the islands regions are different. I hope that it will be possible to recognise those difficulties, as the consequence of not doing so is that teams would be broken up, which could impinge on some of the other services that are provided by the environmental services department.
I am informed by KPMG, whose recommendations the Government are only too keen to accept on other occasions, that the benefits of having agency status were picked up in a KPMG report, but, unfortunately, the Bill as it stands makes no provision for that. The amendment should commend itself to the Government. It achieves their objective of having SEPA in place. It ensures that a team of experts is retained and it means that environmental protection in islands regions would be


delivered at an efficient cost. I therefore hope that, even if the Government are not able to accept it tonight, they might be willing to consider it in future.

Mr. Galbraith: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He probably knows that I raised this matter informally with the Minister in Committee on behalf of councils and as the Scottish representative on the Committee. The Minister did not accept my points and I conveyed that to the hon. Gentleman's council. However, the Minister should reconsider the matter. The islands are unique in the way in which they function and in their social structure. They work closely together and it is important to retain that. There are difficulties if the base is in Aberdeen or wherever it might be. We have always treated the islands in a unique way; the health services and local government have been managed differently. That should continue.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) raised the subject of the right to air pollution control. We raised the matter in Committee, pushing it to a vote against the Government, who seemed intent on not moving on it. If they wish to change their mind again tonight, I would be only too pleased.

Mr. Atkins: I make no apology for explaining once again the main reasons for the Government's belief that waste regulation would benefit from being transferred to the agency. The three key arguments in support of our policy are integration, consistency and expertise. First, our proposals will ensure integration of waste regulation with the agency's other pollution control functions. Secondly, the Government are not persuaded that genuine consistency in waste regulation across the country can be combined with the separate discharge of the function by a large number of different regulators. Thirdly, the need to pool expertise is an important reason for including waste regulation within the remit of the agency.
I understand the concerns voiced here and in another place about local accountability and about the importance of the agency providing a locally accessible service. The Government certainly intend the agency to be responsible and responsive to citizens' concerns, but I cannot accept that such sensitivity can be achieved only by local authorities.
We shall expect the agency to be organised so that it is accessible to people in every part of the country and can respond rapidly to problems concerning waste. That is reflected in the requirements of the agency's draft management statement. No doubt it will take a little time for the public to get used to the new system, but the National Rivers Authority has within a few years established a clear place for itself in the public consciousness, and I am sure that the agency will do the same.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland answered the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), but the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) mentioned amendment No. 265. As was often the case in Committee, I have sought advice from my distinguished hon. Friend. He tells me that amendment No. 265 could potentially undermine the reasons for establishing the new single cross-media authority by transferring on a piecemeal basis some functions back to local authorities.
In those circumstances, the integrated approach applied on the mainland would break down, with the loss of a consistent approach in each islands authority.
The amendment would also allow a local authority to regulate its own landfill sites, which is totally against the principle of separating regulation from operation, which is at the heart of the Government's proposals for SEPA. Following those explanations, I hope that hon. Members will be able to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Dafis: Some of the things that the Minister told me were welcome. He did not respond specifically to my suggestion that in Wales there should be 10 local offices, but he emphasised the importance of a presence on the ground, a decentralist structure and accessibility to local communities. I do not want to press the amendment to a Division, so I beg to ask leave the withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES TO THE AGENCY

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 5, line 46, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 5

GENERAL FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO POLLUTION CONTROL

Amendment made: No. 204, in page 7, line 28, leave out 'section 161' and insert 'sections 161 to 161C'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 6

GENERAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO WATER

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 8, line 41, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 43, 78 and 79.

Sir Hector Monro: It is not often that a Minister has a chance to move an amendment affecting only his own constituency, but that is what I intend to do. The simple story is that the mouth of the Tweed is in England, and most of the river is in Scotland, but the Tweed Commissioners look after the whole river. With the Border Esk, however, which runs into the Solway, the mouth is in England and the rest of the river is in Scotland, but there has been a difficulty.
The bailiffs who are the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority and are managing the river have not been able to take all the action they have wanted to take when operating in Scotland. When Scottish poachers are running, the bailiffs have had to stop once they have left the river. If we pass the amendment, the bailiffs could follow them up the banks to their motor cars and take appropriate action.
This will be a helpful opportunity to improve the policing of the river, which is already well known for its excellent salmon, sea trout and brown trout fishing, at moderate cost.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 43, in page 9, line 3, at end insert 'and
(c) in the case of sections 31 to 34 and 36(2) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 as applied by section 39(1B) of that Act, so much of the catchment area of the River Esk as is situated in Scotland,'.—[Sir Hector Monro.]

Clause 7

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND RECREATIONAL DUTIES

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 257, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—
(6A) It shall be the duty of the Agency to provide and publish advice to the Minister of the Agriculture Fisheries and Food, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, concerning the discharge of pollutants at sea.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 84.

Mr. Dafis: Amendment No. 257 has been prompted by the Brent Spar episode and the unsatisfactory state of affairs that were brought to light. It addresses that position in two connected but different ways. My amendment would ensure that the agency would provide advice to Ministers, and especially to the Department of Trade and Industry, concerning the discharge of pollutants at sea. That would, of course, encompass the disposal of oil rigs, which inevitably involves discharge of pollutants at some point. That would be consistent with the agency's role, inherited from the National Rivers Authority, of regulating discharges to seas and rivers.
All businesses wishing to dispose of any effluent to the river or sea must obtain a discharge consent from the NRA, which has acquired a reputation for considerable rigour in this matter, and we presume that that rigour will be inherited by the new agencies.
Currently, only the Ministry of Agriculture provides advice, and the DTI then provides a licence for disposal of an oil rig, as for its being brought into operation in the first place—the DTI has both those functions. The Brent Spar episode illustrates the need for consideration of the question of disposal at the time of licensing commissioning of the rig in the first place, just as the decommissioning of nuclear power stations should be considered before construction and commissioning. The question whether disposal on land was an even worse environmental option than at sea would not then arise.
The amendment is especially relevant in Wales, where we have the possibility of oil and gas exploration, existing exploration and exploitation in Cardigan bay and the Irish sea. Clearly, people there do not want to see another Brent Spar.
The second way in which the amendment would deal with the issue is that it provides for the advice from the agency to Ministers to be published. That is absolutely essential. It is vital that the public are aware of such matters right from the outset, just as they should be aware of the grounds for rejecting or allocating certain blocks for oil exploration under current rounds. The public and the consulting bodies are not always aware of the grounds on which blocks are awarded or refused permission to explore.
It is crucial that, if the Department of Trade and Industry overrules the advice of the Environment Agency, just as it might currently overrule the advice from the

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that should be public knowledge. We would not then have the sort of uncertainty that has occurred over the advice that the Ministry of Agriculture gave to the Department of Trade and Industry about Brent Spar. That was not made clear for some time.
A major piece of environmental legislation should have something to say about the marine environment.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman's amendment refers simply to "the discharge of pollutants". Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention that that should cover unintended, accidental or negligent discharges, which might be relevant when considering environmental aspects of the debate between offshore loading and laying pipelines in some of the new oil developments in the west Atlantic?

Mr. Dafis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind intervention. The amendment deals with advice provided by the agency in relation to a deliberate intention to discharge, not to an accidental discharge. I am sure that that point has been well made.
There is a need to respond to the tremendous public concern and alarm about the state of the seas and the oceans, and the role that pollution plays in the deterioration that is occurring. My amendment would provide for that, and, although the agency was not designed for that purpose, the Bill has picked up additional functions as it has proceeded, and it would seem reasonable to add to the agency this important function.

Mr. Ainger: In Committee, the Government announced that they were accepting EU directive 85\337, which meant that environmental impact assessments for new offshore developments would be required from April 1996. We debated that issue in Committee, when it was clear that the Government had a closely defined concept of developments. It related to new production facilities, pipelines, production rigs and so on. It did not cover exploration, which is an issue of which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and I are well aware, bearing in mind the developments currently taking place in Cardigan bay and the Celtic sea.
I was disappointed in Committee because, when the Minister was pressed, he refused to accept that the Government should extend the concept of development to include exploration and that is unfortunate. However, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North so ably said, even the new rules relating to environmental impact assessments will not cover existing developments. In other words, all the rigs that may have to be scrapped in the next 10, 20 or even 30 years will not he covered by an environmental impact assessment.
This is a serious issue, and I wonder whether the Minister can give us any indication of whether the Government intend to introduce any new regulations, particularly in relation to environmental impact assessments, to deal with any developments that will not be covered by directive 85\337. What will we do with all the other developments put in place before April 1996?

Mr. Atkins: Government amendment No. 84 is a deregulatory amendment to remove an overlap which currently exists between the provisions of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 and part I of the Environmental


Protection Act 1990. It would prevent the need for an operator to apply for an exemption under section 23 of the 1971 Act where certain discharges or escapes are already covered by an integrated pollution control authorization. This will not in any way weaken protection of the environment.
Amendment No. 257 is wholly unnecessary. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are the Government's advisers on marine pollution, as the expertise rests with them. Information on the discharge of pollutants is already published. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dafis: Naturally, I am not particularly pleased with that response. I should like strongly to endorse the points made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), particularly his comment about the need for oil exploration, not just extraction, to be subject to an environmental impact assessment. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

ASSESSING FLOOD RISK

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 25, line 10, after first 'the', insert 'relevant'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 11, in page 25, line 11, at end add—
'(3) SEPA shall designate areas ("Flood prevention plan areas") in respect of which planning authorities are to prepare flood prevention plans drawn up in consultation with SEPA.'.

Mrs. Fyfe: Amendment No. 10 is a simple amendment which ensures clarity, and I hope that the Minister will have no difficulty with it.
Amendment No. 11 is more substantial, but it is equally straightforward. It calls for a step that could be of immense benefit in the future. It requires that SEPA should have a duty to designate areas known as flood prevention plan areas, in respect of which planning authorities would have to prepare flood prevention plans, drawn up in consultation with SEPA.
Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friends in Committee, the Government have moved slightly, and that is welcome. This further step is one that the Government must surely see the sense of. As the World Wide Fund for Nature has pointed out, activities that need planning consent may create a risk of flooding, and SEPA should be in a position to advise the planning authority so that adequate prevention can be undertaken.
The Government have given SEPA the function of collecting information on flood risk, but they have not given it the duty to assess flood risk and provide that information to the local authorities. If that were done, the logical and necessary step would be for the relevant planning authorities to draw up flood prevention plans in consultation with SEPA, benefiting from the advice and knowledge it had gathered.
Hon. Members know very well the immense hardship suffered by households when the Clyde, the White Cart and the Kelvin flooded last winter. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who I am surprised is not present because he has taken up many flooding issues, suffered similar miseries in his constituency some time earlier.
In the flooding last winter, millions of pounds' worth of damage occurred, and repairs are still going on. Families lost their hard-earned furnishings, which cost thousands to replace—money that all too many of them do not have to spend.
The River Kelvin walkway, which is in my constituency as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) is damaged, and is impassable at certain points. The Scottish exhibition and conference centre was flooded, together with the Clydeside expressway, causing traffic chaos around Glasgow. Support work is still needed at Broomielaw. The water overflowing from the Kelvin flooded an old railway tunnel under Kelvingrove park and flooded the Argyll railway line. That line is still closed, and is costing millions in repairs and lost revenue for the railways.
There is also the human cost. The appalling plight of the residents of Ferguslie park and other areas was well documented at the time, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will be ready to remind the House what a dreadful tragedy this was for so many people. Most tragically of all, some people drowned in the floods.
Surely it is worth taking the care envisaged in amendment No. 11 to ensure that we are as prepared as possible. We cannot stop nature doing its worst on occasions, but that is no excuse for not doing what we can. That should not stop us from making intelligent plans to foresee the possibilities and to do all in our power to prevent the ill consequences that I have described, to lessen the impact when full prevention is not possible.
If the Minister is concerned about value for money, the case for the amendment is unanswerable. It could be the hap'orth of tar that saves the ship.

Mr. Galbraith: As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, part of the impetus behind the clause was provided by the extensive flooding that took place last December. Normal rainfall in the Glasgow area for the month of December is about 7 in to 8 in, yet, in 48 hours last December, 15 in fell—almost twice the normal monthly rainfall in two days.
The result was extensive flooding, both in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and in mine. The River Kelvin overflowed its banks, as did its tributaries the Luggie and the Glazert, and so did the Allender, in another part of my constituency. As a result, 250 families had to evacuate their homes, 400 jobs were lost in local businesses, and business itself lost millions of pounds. Most regrettably, there was also a death in my area.
Flooding is not new in my constituency, but it has never been so severe before. Water control experts to whom I have spoken say, although I am not sure how strongly they would maintain the case, that there may be a climatic change which means that the flooding is likely to happen again. We have been told that such an event would occur


only once in a hundred years, but people now say that it may happen again next year. That is what my constituents are worried about.
I have been involved when flooding has taken place in the past, and the first problem that faced us was finding out who was responsible for dealing with the flood. The situation is especially complicated in my area, because many people are involved. First, there are all the riparian owners with flood defences; there are private owners such as the Caledonian estate, and there are local authorities. Farmers, too, are involved, so the Agriculture and Fisheries Department at the Scottish Office also has a role. On top of all that, regional council has the permissive powers on flood defences.
Then there is another layer in my constituency. Under successive land drainage Acts since 1941, the Scottish Office has had a direct responsibility. That set-up started when Tom Johnson was Secretary of State. There is therefore a rather complex division of responsibility, and one of the problems is that it is difficult to get anything moving, because, when we try to do anything about the floods, everyone passes the problem off to someone else.
The situation is further complicated by the mechanisms we need to use to build flood defences. First, quite correctly, we need a proper study. For my area, that would cost £500,000. Once we had done that, it would take some time to raise a flood prevention order. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), that took four years. Once that happened, we would still have to find the money for the flood prevention, which in my constituency would cost about £5 million.
As a result of pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South and others, including myself, since the recent flooding, the Government introduced a new clause, clause 25, which I welcome. It gives SEPA powers to assess flood risk and make information available to local authorities on request. That is welcome, because it will prevent the problem from recurring in other areas, so it is a major step forward. There is no doubt that houses in my area were built on the flood plain, and proper planning should have prevented that. I hope that clause 25 will go some way towards dealing with that, and I thank the Government for it.
As I have said, the problem in my constituency is that houses have been built on flood plains. Some of them, in Summerfield for example, had just been built, and the people had been in them only three weeks when they were flooded. Those people are now looking for action. They have their houses there now, and some have not been back in them since December. They need flood prevention plans.
There is an urgent need to get things rolling, but everyone passes the problem on to everyone else, and no one has a duty. The lead authority is now the regional council, but responsibility will fall on the unitary authority, which in my constituency will be East Dumbartonshire. However, the powers are merely permissive, and we require statutory powers. Our amendment seeks to give SEPA the statutory powers to designate flood prevention plan areas, after which it would be the local authority's duty to produce plans.
Then there is the question of money—but we can argue and fight about that later. Now we must get the ball rolling, because, whatever anyone says, the current system does not

work. It has not produced flood defences for my constituents or for many others. We need to change the system. Our amendment would do that, and I commend it to the Government.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), and I support amendment No. 11 in particular. All of us who witnessed at first hand the floods in Strathclyde in December suddenly realised how devastating floods can be. In my constituency, I saw people having to leave their homes by the upstairs windows—people who had taken their whole lives to build up a home and buy their furniture, and who then had to watch the furniture float away while they realised that their insurance cover was inadequate. Not only those people's homes, but their lives, were devastated.
Now that the television cameras have gone and the media interest has disappeared, it is worth pointing out that many hundreds of those families have still not returned to their homes. In Paisley, the great focus of attention was on Ferguslie park area, because that is an area of multiple deprivation, but in my constituency there are four other sites where an equal number of homes were affected but which received much less publicity. Paisley south end, the Park avenue area, the Kilpatrick estate area and Collier street in Johnstone were all affected.
The causes of the floods in Ferguslie park, in the south end of Paisley and in the other three places were all different. It is worth remembering that, because, although the devastation is the same for all the people affected, different solutions are needed. We need a way of co-ordinating flood prevention so that we do not simply move the flood waters from one area to another. For example, flood prevention in the Park avenue area, which is at the top of a hill, may simply move the trouble down to the south end and cause a problem there. So there must be co-ordination.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden on the work he did in Committee to ensure that the case was put, in the interests not only of his constituents but of those of other Members, who have also been flooded before—and, indeed, in the interests of those who have not yet been flooded but who may meet the same fate unless we amend the Bill.
My hon. Friend hit the issue precisely on the head. I have asked the Scottish Office many parliamentary questions, and there has been much correspondence with Strathclyde regional council. The Scottish Office's answers tell us that Strathclyde has permissive powers to take action, but that, in the past 20 years, it has sought only one flood prevention scheme, which is now in place.
That may be true, but if so, it merely reinforces the fact that the current system does not work. The Scottish Office has a duty to introduce a system that does work. That is not a party political view or a petty point-scoring exercise.
I introduced the Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill, which deals with flooding. It has been blocked by the Government, but it has been supported by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), by Liberal Democrat and Scottish National party Members, and by Labour Members. Flood prevention must be dealt with. The amendment is eminently sensible, because it suggests that we should


move away from permissive powers and towards duties. Until that happens, nothing will be done to put flood prevention schemes on the ground where they are needed.
Our constituents who were flooded in December 1994, many of them with inadequate insurance and many just above the level of income support, which means that they do not qualify for community care grants and may not be entitled to social fund loans, will have to consider over the next few months moving back into their homes. Week after week, they come to me, to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and to other hon. Members involved, saying, "We don't want to buy new furniture and move back into our houses when nothing has been done to prevent floods this winter."
Who can blame people for making that point? Their lives have been devastated once. They have to accept what has happened, but they want to know that it cannot happen again. They therefore need some means of making sure that someone has not a permissive power, but a duty, to ensure that there is adequate flood prevention.
The law is further complicated by the fact that, in many areas, it is notoriously difficult to trace riparian owners, and notoriously difficult to find out who is responsible for flood prevention. If the amendment is passed, that would be absolutely clear, and it would make a real difference to the lives of the flood victims we represent.

Mr. Wallace: I support the amendment. I acknowledge the work done by the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in response to the plight of their constituents following the appalling floods last December.
During the recent campaign for the unitary authority elections in Scotland, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and our local candidates, I met some of the flood victims. Until I met people whose lives had been completely devastated by what had happened, it had not been brought home to me what an intrusion flooding was. What came over to me more than anything else in some cases was that people were afraid ever to go back into their houses, no matter how much drying up there had been, no matter whether they had new carpets, and no matter whether their purchases had been insured.
Housing developments have been allowed in areas that have, historically, been known to have flood problems. Yet the statutory framework for effectively tackling the problem has not been in place, and if there has been a permissive power, it has not been exercised. The amendment is appropriate, because it will help to focus attention on areas with flood problems throughout Scotland, and it will impose a duty.
One can learn something from natural disasters, rather than having the experience visited on others. Hon. Members representing other constituencies should not have to make similar speeches in future. Surely now we have an opportunity to legislate, and we should take advantage of that.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to respond to the debate, in which we have heard speeches by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), all of whom have highlighted the dramatic flooding last winter in the Clyde area.
As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said, there was quite exceptional rainfall, which caused extensive damage, especially to housing in low-lying areas. Like all the hon. Members I have mentioned, I felt distraught about what happened to the householders who lost their belongings and a great deal more. Naturally, we should like to see the problem reduced if possible.
I wonder, however, whether we are going down the right route, because, as all hon. Members have said, permissive powers are already in place. Hon. Members are always saying that we should give local authorities powers, and then give them the chance to carry them out. The regional authorities have had these powers throughout their existence, and although they have failed to carry them out, it is wrong to start to look at the Government to try to force them to do what they ought to do of their own volition.
As several hon. Members have willingly conceded, we have added to the Bill clause 25, which gives the Scottish Environment Protection Agency the function to assess, as far as it considers appropriate, the risk of flooding in any area of Scotland. It also requires the agency to provide planning authorities, on request, with advice on flood risk, based on all the information available to it.
Opposition Members have said, rightly, that there is some duplication and uncertainty. Come next April, we shall be dealing with unitary councils, which will be responsible for planning and flood prevention, and which will have every other local authority responsibility. That in itself will make things a great deal easier than they are at present. The power to carry out surveys to assess flood risk, which follows automatically from the general power under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951, will greatly assist SEPA in assembling information.
I want to bring home to Opposition Members the fact that, in March this year, having taken account of the serious flooding last winter in the Clyde area and the year before in Tayside, we produced a national planning policy guideline, "Planning and Flooding", which rehearsed many of the arguments and referred to the rainfall statistics. It also said what local authorities should be prepared to do at times when flooding was possible. We asked for comments on the draft planning policy guideline by May this year, and the final version will be available shortly. It will give all the information that local authorities and planning authorities could conceivably want when taking action.
Local authorities must be prepared to take action themselves; they have, rightly, permissive powers, and they are backed up by Government grants for flood prevention. I was a local authority councillor for long enough to know that one tends to put on one side things that are less likely to happen. Flood prevention, which does not look very exciting to the electorate until they are flooded out, tends to get put on one side. Local authorities must give flood prevention a high priority if SEPA's advice is that flooding is a serious risk.
Clause 25 is important, in that it brings home to the planning authority, which will be the new council, the fact that, if it wants advice on flooding, it must go to SEPA. That is exceptionally important when new housing estates are about to be built, in view of the disastrous results of the floods in Ferguslie and other places in the west of Scotland.
Clause 25 is a constructive way forward. SEPA will give advice to the planning authority before it gives approval. It is important to realise that, if SEPA's advice is that the area


in question is dangerous, and if the planning authority still wants to go ahead, the application must go the Secretary of State, and, if necessary, he will call it in.

Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister telling the House that he is utterly confident that clause 25, unamended, will guarantee that everything possible that can be done will be done to prevent the tragedies, loss of business and upset that were visited on people last winter?

7 pm

Sir Hector Monro: Nobody can honestly give any guarantee on the outcome of flooding when something like 60 mm of rain falls in 24 hours, as happened last winter. The Bill gives the local authority the opportunity to take the right steps. It can get advice from SEPA and has powers itself to deal with flood prevention; that is how it should be.
Local authorities have only to ask SEPA for its advice and then take action, backed up, as I have said before, by grants from the Scottish Office. The responsibility is on the local authorities, and they ought to accept it willingly. They are always asking for more powers; here is one ready for them.
What I have said shows that the Government, especially with the new planning guidelines, take the matter very seriously. I hope that local authorities will implement the guidelines right away when they receive the final draft in early or mid-summer. We can then start to prevent the construction of houses in dangerous places and, I hope, take steps to prevent flooding through appropriate action.
The ball is very much in the court of the local authorities. They have the powers and the technical advice from SEPA, and ought to be able to take appropriate action in their areas. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 261.

Division No.182
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainger, Nick
Cann, Jamie


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Allen, Graham
Chidgey, David


Alton, David
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Church, Judith


Armstrong, Hilary
Clapham, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Berry, Roger
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Betts, Clive
Corbett, Robin


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dafis, Cynog


Brown, N (N'c' tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Burden, Richard
Denham, John


Byers, Stephen
Dewar, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dixon, Don


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Frank





Dowd, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Eagle, Ms Angela
MacShane, Denis


Eastham, Ken
Maddock, Diana


Etherington, Bill
Mahon, Alice


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fisher, Mark
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michael, Alun


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Milburn, Alan


Fraser, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Fyfe, Maria
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Galbraith, Sam
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliot


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Garrett, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A
Murphy, Paul


Godsiff, Roger
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Graham, Thomas
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Olner, Bill


Grocott, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gunnell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hain, Peter
Parry, Robert


Hanson, David
Pearson, Ian


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L


Harvey, Nick
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Henderson, Doug
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Heppell, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hinchliffe, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Hodge, Margaret
Purchase, Ken


Hoey, Kate
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Radice, Giles


Hood, Jimmy
Randall, Stuart


Hoon, Geoffrey
Raynsford, Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Reid, Dr John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rendel, David


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rooker, Jeff


Hutton, John
Rooney, Terry


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rowlands, Ted


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Ruddock, Joan


Janner, Greville
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jowell, Tessa
Short, Clare


Keen, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Khabra, Piara S
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Spellar, John


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Livingstone, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Straw, Jack


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAllion, John
Timms, Stephen


McAvoy, Thomas
Tipping, Paddy


McCartney, Robert (North Down)
Touhig, Don


Macdonald, Calum
Turner, Dennis


McFall, John
Tyler, Paul


McKelvey, William
Vaz, Keith


Mackinlay, Andrew
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McLeish, Henry
Wallace, James






Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wright, Dr Tony


Welsh, Andrew
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. George Mudie.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Amess, David
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ashby, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forman, Nigel


Bates, Michael
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bright, Sir Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Madel, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Mans, Keith
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David



Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills lain
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thumham, Peter


Moate, Sir Roger 
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
 Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard 


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. David Willetts

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 52

INQUIRIES AND OTHER HEARINGS

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 43, line 27, leave out
'Subject to subsection (3) below',.—[Mr. Wells.]

Clause 56

CONTAMINATED LAND

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 264, in page 48, line 19, at end add
'; and any small-scale land-fill site, the size of which should be designated by regulation, will be exempt from the Part.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 134 and 139 to 141.
Amendment No. 120, in page 57, line 37, after 'that', insert—

'(a) any delay would afford an inadequate remedy in the case of land which is contaminated by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 78A above.
(b)'.

Amendment No. 121, in page 59, line 24, at end insert—
'(11) Nothing in this section shall prevent an enforcing authority from serving a remediation notice in such circumstances where a person who prepares and publishes a remediation statement by virtue of the requirement in subsection (7)(a) above fails without reasonable excuse to do these things which by virtue of subsections (6)(a) and (6)(c) above it was expected would be done within the periods within which it was expected they would be done.'.
Government amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 166.
Amendment No. 123, in page 67, line 35, at end add—
'() An enforcing authority in Scotland shall have the power to make a charging order in respect of any costs incurred by it in terms of subsections (1) and (2) above.
() Schedule 2C shall have effect in relation to charging orders in Scotland.'.
Government amendments Nos. 174 and 175.
Amendment No. 122, in page 68, line 11, at end insert—
'() restrictions imposed by virtue of section 78G above which prevent an enforcing authority from serving a remediation notice for the time being.'.
Government amendments Nos. 177 and 179.
Amendment No. 124, in schedule 22, page 300, line 22, at end add—
'After Schedule 2B to that Act there shall be inserted—

SCHEDULE 2C

RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY CHARGING ORDER

1. —Where under section 78N a local authority in Scotland has incurred expenses in relation to a remediation carried out by it, it may make in favour of itself an order (in this Schedule referred to as a 'charging order') providing and declaring that the premises affected by the remediation is thereby charged and burdened with an annuity to pay the amount of the expenses.
2. —The annuity charged shall be such sum not exceeding such sum as may be prescribed, as the local authority may determine for every £100 of the said amount and so in proportion for any less sum, and shall commence from the date of the order and be payable for a term of five years to the local authority.

3. —A charging order shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall be recorded in the General Register of Sasines or registered in the Land Register, as the case may be.
4. —Every annuity constituting a charge by a charging order duly recorded in the General Register of Sasines or registered in the Land Register, as the case may be, shall be a charge on the premises specified in the order and shall have priority over—

(a) all future burdens and incumbrances on the same land, and
(b) all existing burdens and incumbrances thereon except—

(i) feuduties, teinds, ground annuals, stipends and standard charges in lieu of stipends;
(ii) any charges created or arising under any local Act authorising a charge for recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority, or under this Schedule; and
(iii) any charge created under any Act authorising advances of public money.

5. —A charging order duly recorded in the General Register of Sasines or registered in the Land Register, as the case may be, shall be conclusive evidence that the charge specified therein has been duly created in respect of the premises specified in the order.
6. —Every annuity charged by a charging order may be recovered by the person for the time being entitled to it by the same means and in the like manner in all respects as if it were a feuduty.
7. —A charging order and all sums payable thereunder may be from time to time transferred in like manner as a bond and disposition in security and sums payable thereunder.
8. —Any owner of, or other person interested in, premises on which an annuity has been charged by any such charging order shall at any time be at liberty to redeem the annuity on payment to the local authority or other person entitled thereto of such sum as may be agreed upon or, in default of agreement, determined by the Secretary of State.".'.

Mr. Kirkwood: Amendment No. 264 relates to an important part of the Bill and deals with the vexed question of contaminated land. It is a very broad subject and it is right that the House should spend some time examining it at this stage in the proceedings. However, the amendment can be dealt with expeditiously.
Amendment No. 264 in fact relates only to part of the problem of contaminated land. It seeks to ensure that the provisions that have already, and perfectly properly, been included in the Bill for the control of landfill sites differentiate between pieces of contaminated land on the basis of scale.
When landfill is being used as a method for the disposal of waste, it is right that there should be full-blown controls with proper inspection and registration fees. It is quite proper that, when large-scale sites are being used in that way, the necessary panoply of bureaucracy exists to ensure that the proper controls and procedures are put into effect and that the rules and regulations are observed.
7.15 pm
I am sure that my part of south-east Scotland is not exceptional in this respect and that people in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom do the same, but some of my constituents have been able to make efficient use, on an informal basis, of small-scale sites for the disposal of some waste. For example, farmers may have small quarries or areas of land which have no agricultural use but which are appropriate for the disposal of, for example, building rubble and other inoffensive, non-noxious, non-dangerous waste. The arrangement has suited both parties to the agreement very well.
Farmers can get a small income from land that would otherwise be of no use, and small local firms—I am thinking of two-men businesses such as plastering and joining firms and the like—can have ready and cheap


access to a method of getting rid of a few lorryloads of inoffensive building material. That practice has developed over recent years. It is now well understood and has been very satisfactory, certainly in south-east Scotland.
My fear is that the provisions, relating also to large-scale sites, will be counter-productive to the extent that they will impose fees and a regime of control that is so heavy-handed that it will make small-scale sites prohibitively expensive for local builders and others who make use of them. It is not sensible that that situation should be allowed to develop by default.
I suspect that, in their quite proper enthusiasm to ensure that disposal sites are properly regulated, the Government have overlooked the circumstances that I have described. I therefore think that the Government should consider carefully whether they are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut and whether they will in fact end up encouraging more rather than less fly-tipping in the rural areas of Scotland and elsewhere.
If, as is proposed, small businesses with a little rubble to dispose of are charged relatively extortionate fees for access to fully regulated sites, they will inevitably take the law into their own hands. I do not condone it, but people will throw lorryloads of inoffensive, non-noxious rubble down riverbanks, along the roadside and in other readily accessible places. It is in no one's interest that that should happen.
At this late stage in the passage of the Bill, I make a plea for the Government again to consider carefully whether a sensible cut-off point at which an exemption can cut in can he found and thus allow for a lower level of control for small landfill sites. We can argue about the level at which exemptions should apply. If the Government are prepared to countenance the principle, I am sure that the detail can be resolved through sensible consultation. I am certain that, if no exemptions are made and the facilities cannot be used in an accessible and reasonably affordable way, the provisions will be counter-productive in the long term, and I hope that the Government will consider exempting small landfill sites as the amendment suggests.

Ms Ruddock: For the convenience of the House I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 120, 121 and 122.
Clause 56 inserts section 78G into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and requires the enforcing authority to consult before serving a remediation notice and reasonably to endeavour to consult the appropriate person—the owner or any occupier. It also requires that three months' grace be given before a notice is served, to allow the owner to come up with his own scheme.
In Committee, we made much of that three-month delay. The Government will know that we opposed it, but none the less it remains in the Bill. We remain concerned and we want the House to be aware that the enforcing authority is thus prevented from securing the expeditious remediation of land through a remediation notice. Furthermore, disputes could occur and lengthen that three-month period. We are worried that the enforcing authority would not be able to act in cases where it might be important and somewhat urgent for it to do so.
The Minister has already put it on record that there is provision for dealing with real emergencies, but there are in-between cases with which amendment No. 120 would deal. It would allow an enforcing authority to act immediately if delay would afford an inadequate

remedy—I must stress the word "inadequate". That could provide a vital safeguard in urgent cases, as an appropriate person who is not disposed to clean up the land could claim that he will do so and thus prevent the enforcing authority from taking the necessary action.
Amendment No. 121 would allow an authority to serve a remediation notice in circumstances in which it had not served one because the appropriate person had prepared an apparently satisfactory remediation statement, but had failed to carry out the intentions in the statement.
I appreciate that this is a complicated technical matter, but I am sure that, if he is listening, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will understand my arguments and that the Government failed to satisfy us in Committee. All local authority associations—the enforcing authorities—are very much concerned about the matter and believe that they could be frustrated in acting in circumstances in which the Opposition and the Government would desire them to act. In the circumstances that I have described, it is not clear to us whether an authority could undertake any action. If the associations and I are wrong and the Minister can reassure us on that point, we shall be happy not to press the amendments.
Section 78Q, which is also to be inserted in the 1990 Act, prescribes the detail and content of registers to be held by the enforcing authority. Although registers will include details of what the Bill calls "remediation" statements—a record of what an owner intends to do about contaminated land—they do not provide for a sufficiently early public record of contaminated land to be remediated in such a way. That is our belief and that of the local authority associations.
According to the Bill, an owner will be required to publish a remediation statement only within "a reasonable time" of having made clear his intention to carry out remediation. We do not know what a reasonable time is and, clearly, it is important. A local authority cannot serve a remediation notice until three months have elapsed, nor thereafter—this is the important point—if it believes that appropriate remediation steps are being taken without the service of a remediation notice.
There may, therefore, be some considerable delay between an enforcement authority establishing that land is contaminated and details of that land being referred to the register, which would give an unscrupulous owner further opportunity to divest himself of his responsibilities for the land—longer than the three months about which we have already argued with the Minister.
Amendment No. 122 would close the anomaly that local authorities and the Opposition have identified in the Bill. The amendment imposes a condition on the enforcing authority to enter details on to the register at the earliest opportunity in such circumstances.
Those might seem small, technical points of detail, but as we found in Committee, there are many small details on which there is little clarity when it comes to contaminated land. As the Government have chosen to table such huge rafts of amendments very late in the proceedings, people have not been able to scrutinise this part of the Bill properly. I hope that the Minister will answer in some detail and more thoroughly than he did at times in Committee.

Mr. Galbraith: I also want to deal with a technical matter that relates to charging. The problem with the Bill


is that, although English local authorities can charge for the remediation of another individual's land, that power is not open to local authorities in Scotland.
My amendment would allow Scottish local authorities to make charging orders to cover remediation costs incurred under new section 78N of the Environment Protection Act 1990, which is inserted by clause 56 of the Bill.
Charging orders already exist in Scottish law. Local authorities can make charging orders under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Building (Scotland) Acts. I realise that giving local authorities the power of a heritable creditor in possession simply by virtue of a charging order would cut across the provisions of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970, whereby a standard security is the only method for creating an effective security in Scots law.
On the other hand, however, leaving enforcing authorities with only court action and the attendant diligence of inhibition as a remedy is not the most satisfactory method of proceeding. Inhibition is merely a preventive diligence that prohibits a seller from disposing of the property. It works only if the seller is the owner. It would not affect a lessee unless the lease was assignable.
Furthermore, final enforcement to obtain the right of adjudication over the property, whereby the Court of Session causes the heritable property of a debtor to be converted into a security for his debt, is a long, involved and expensive process, particularly when compared with the charging order provision that will apply under clause 56. Again, short-term leaseholders and other occupiers are not affected by adjudication in execution.
As the Bill stands, council tax payers in Scotland would be disadvantaged because of that dissimilarity in the legal provisions. I understand that the Government are not yet of a mind to accept the amendment, but I hope that the Minister can reassure me tonight that they will closely monitor the charging for remediation work on others' land by Scottish local authorities, and that they will continue to follow it up.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I support amendment No. 123. Recently, my constituency has experienced problems caused by land contaminated by a former munitions works. I have been in correspondence with the local authority and told that it will cost £95,000 to deal with a canal adjacent to the works that has become contaminated with mercury. The prospect of that £95,000 being borne by the council tax payer in Scotland, if charges were not allowed, seems unreasonable and unfair.
The question who should be charged is slightly more difficult. The works were formerly owned by Nobel, which was a part of ICI, and the land has possibly been sold to someone who anticipates a development gain by building houses on it at some point in the future. It is clearly in the interests of the local authority and the people in the vicinity to have the land cleaned up. But if there are no charging mechanisms, there will be a great deal of reluctance for the local authority to proceed with that work.
I hope that the Minister realises that the charging proposal should be looked at and taken on board by the Government, either in the form of the amendment tabled

by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) or through another amendment on the same subject.

Sir Paul Beresford: I shall refer first to amendment No. 264. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will recognise on reflection that the contaminated land provisions in the new part IIA of the 1990 Act deal only with sites that are either not subject to the licensing arrangements or no longer subject to them because they have closed. We have looked carefully at some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but the amendment, by focusing on a particular past site use, may deprive the authorities of powers needed to deal with real environmental risks. I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
We all hope and anticipate that a small landfill site would not present unacceptable environmental risks, and that no significant harm or water pollution would occur. In a great number of cases, that will be true, but we do not want to take the general risk of depriving authorities of the power they may need to deal with environmental problems that occur.
On amendment No. 120, the Government believe on the whole that it would be better for enforcement action to take the form of the service of a remedial notice, rather than the undertaking of works by the enforcing authority. That leaves the person facing the regulatory burden with the choice of how to comply with the requirements, and gives him direct control over the costs.
In some circumstances, I agree that it would be appropriate for the enforcing authority to carry out the remediation itself, but we feel that that should be limited. The provisions in the Bill already allow such direct action, particularly where there is imminent danger of serious harm or pollution of controlled waters. I do not think that the provision should be extended in the way envisaged in the amendment, as that would allow the enforcing authorities to deal with circumstances in which delay would result in inadequate remedies without any consideration of the seriousness of the underlying problem.

Ms Ruddock: I apologise if I have interrupted the Minister too soon, but he has not so far described a situation in which there could be some urgency, but which was not an emergency. Is he able to do that? If not, can he give an idea of the timing of the guidance that the Government are preparing, and of any consultation associated with that guidance?

Sir Paul Beresford: I would be happy to do so if I had the details with me, and I am willing to write to the hon. Lady as fast as I can on the matter. She understands that the Government accept the seriousness of the point that she is making, but we feel that there is sufficient provision in the Bill to act along the lines that she is concerned about.

Ms Ruddock: By the Minister's own acknowledgement in parliamentary answers, the Government are to bring forward guidance on how local authorities should prepare remediation notices, who is the responsible person and a host of matters that are central to the consideration of the clause. Is he absolutely unable to give any idea at all of when that guidance will be produced?

Sir Paul Beresford: At present, I am afraid that that is the situation. I accept that we must look at the concerns raised by the hon. Lady, but we feel that the provisions in the Bill will allow us to deal with them.
The Government feel that there is no need for amendment No. 121, as the preclusion on serving a remedial notice in section 78G(4) applies only
if and so long as any one or more of the following conditions is for the time being satisfied".
That clearly means that if an enforcing authority ceased to be satisfied that appropriate remediation was taking place, or would take place, it would have a duty to serve a remedial notice.
I shall touch on amendment Nos. 123 and 124. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland explained in Committee, in response to an amendment with a similar effect, that existing land law in Scotland does not include the use of charging notices of this kind. The introduction of such a system would require fundamental changes to be made in the conveyancing system.
Following the debate in Committee, officials have again met representatives of the Law Society of Scotland to discuss the matter, and they explained the difficulty with the previous proposal. The Government believe that the existing mechanisms under Scots law for recovering costs are adequate, but we are prepared to review that—this is the monitoring that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) wanted—if there is any clear evidence that, once the provisions have been in operation for some time, there is a problem with the recovery of costs in Scotland.
Amendment No. 122 would require the transitory details of consultation about a site to be recorded. That would not add anything of long-term value, as any site for which remediation requirements were made would appear on the register in any case. Where contaminated land was identified, but no remediation notice was served, the information would be placed on the remediation register in the form of either a remediation statement or a remediation declaration. Those would show what remediation was to take place or, in the case of a remediation declaration, why no remediation was required.

Ms Ruddock: Can the Minister deal with the point as to when the information is to be entered on to the register?

Sir Paul Beresford: No, I am afraid that I cannot. I shall have to give the details at a later date.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am tempted to say that that is one of the worst responses that I have ever heard. [Interruption.] I had better be careful in making sweeping statements such as that.
I would like the Minister to think about something. I am not easily provoked, and I understand perfectly well that my amendment is technically incompetent—as so many amendments are. But I could not find any other way of occasioning a debate on a perfectly reasonable subject. I accept that the technical position of my amendment is quite wrong, and that it might have an untoward impact, which I accept that I may not have foreseen.
If I understood the Minister's response to my amendment, I believe that he said that the Government do not care about small infill sites having to carry big registration fees, because they need the big registration

fees to catch the problem sites with bigger amounts of noxious and contaminated waste. If I understood that response correctly, it was completely beside the point and misunderstands the general point that I was trying to raise.
I was simply asking whether the Government will give further consideration to the impact that the provisions will have on small infill land sites. If the Minister now stands up and says that I have it all wrong and that the Government are prepared to look at a different system for inoffensive and small areas of land that farmers can make use of, I shall accept that I misunderstood the position. But I must warn the Minister that, if he dismisses the situation out of hand, I may be provoked into pursuing the amendment further.

Sir Paul Beresford: I may have been misunderstood. Small sites with correspondingly small licence charges come under different provisions. The contaminated land provisions in new part IIA deal with sites that are not subject to licensing arrangements or are no longer subject because they are closed. I understand that there are small licence charges in such cases.
I have shuffled my notes, and I have found the answer for the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). The provisions in the Bill relating to registers are set out so that a site is entered on the register only when the regulatory action takes place or when voluntary action is agreed upon.

Mr. Kirkwood: I return to my original argument. Of course I understand that there are gradations, which vary according to size. However, the Minister is completely missing the point—which is that some landowners have relatively tiny areas of land from which they have been able to derive a living, but the charges for which they will now become liable will prevent them from making use of their land in that way.
For the third time, I ask the Minister carefully to consider the possibility of exempting such landowners or increasing the thresholds for size and scale fees, so that fly-tipping does not result in those landowners defying the charges that the Government propose to levy. If the Minister has not yet got that message, he cannot be responding to the concerns that have been expressed to me by people in the rural parts of Britain.

Sir Paul Beresford: I am certainly happy to look at the matter again. However, as I understand it, the contaminated land provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 impose no fees on any sites of any size. I shall take on board the hon. Gentleman's points and I shall check them for myself. If the potential disaster that he has flagged proves to be the case, I shall be concerned, for many of the reasons that he enunciated.

Ms Ruddock: I want to take this opportunity to invite the Minister, yet again, to ask his advisers to supply him with some new notes. We have a real need to get more satisfaction from him. This is an incredibly complex, technical and lengthy part of the Bill. We are debating a whole range of amendments, but they have not been appropriately addressed by the Minister.
I have already told the hon. Gentleman that, in order to understand most of the matters in this part of the Bill, to which amendments have been tabled, we need to know what is in the Government's draft guidance. Despite the fact that we are at the eleventh hour of this Bill, that draft


guidance has not yet been laid and is not available to hon. Members. Simply to interpret the various clauses of the Bill, which we are trying to discuss and amend, it is necessary to see the draft guidance.
A recent parliamentary answer suggested that it would include guidance on remediation standards and remediation notices, special sites and the appropriate person on whom to serve a remediation notice. As we have not seen even the draft guidance, how on earth can we be expected properly to consider the Bill? The Minister must answer our questions because he has not provided the necessary guidance.

Sir Paul Beresford: As I understand it, part of the guidance is available and is out for consultation. The remainder is not available, but will be in the next few months. It will be used in negotiations and discussions with local authorities.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am content not to press my amendment because the Minister has assured me that he will re-examine the matters that I raised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 125, in page 49, leave out lines 43 to 46 and insert—
' "appropriate person" means any person who is an appropriate person, determined in accordance with section 78F below, to bear responsibility for any thing which is to be done by way of remediation in any particular case;'. —[Mr. Atkins.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 126 to 133, 135 and 136.
Amendment No. 236, in page 56, line 6, after '(a)', insert
'whether a person is the appropriate person and'.
Government amendments Nos. 137, 138, 142 to 160, 165 and 167 to 173.
Amendment No. 244, in page 65, line 49, after 'recoverable', insert
'and to the extent to which the person from which the cost is recoverable is responsible for, as the case may be, the harm or pollution of controller waters caused, or likely to be caused, by the contaminated land in question'.
Government amendment No. 178.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 136. It is clear that, where the polluter cannot be found, under the Bill the responsibility for clearing up contamination of land lies with the owner or occupier. We dealt with that issue in Committee, but I want to pursue it further now. I am especially concerned about small landowners, particularly householders. Perhaps the Minister read the articles in The Sunday Times on 18 and 25 June, which referred to the Pinehurst estate in Sevenoaks. That new estate has been built on contaminated land that has a methane problem. The owners of the houses are facing liability for clearing up the site.
In Committee, we pressed the Minister on the issue of the liability of small landowners, and he said that he would take into account people's resources and their

ability to pay. I want him to consider five specific points relating to the serving of remedial notices on landowners by local authorities.
First, will those notices take into account the cost of remediation in comparison with the value of the property after that work? Clearly, if it will cost more to remediate than the worth of the property, there is a problem. Secondly, will the Minister take into account the position at Sevenoaks and the steps that the home owners have taken to resolve the problem? Thirdly, will he take into account the hardship that people may face? Some may not be in a position to carry out the necessary work. Fourthly, will he take into account the seriousness of the risk and the use to which the land or property is to be put? There is a spectrum of risk. Again, the remediation notices should take that into account.
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman take into account the real issue of an owner who has bought unwittingly? Many householders have unwittingly bought houses on contaminated land with a methane problem. They received the best advice available at the time, yet under the Bill they will incur a liability that many of them will not be able to discharge.
Those issues may be tackled in guidance. Will the Minister say when that will be forthcoming and whether there will be consultation? The questions that I have put are relevant not only to the householders but to the bodies that represent them. I know that the Country Landowners Association is extremely concerned. The British Bankers Association is worried about liabilities that may pass to its members. Insurance companies and mortgage societies feel that it is an extremely difficult problem.
A whole mass of amendments were tabled in Committee, so it is important to get to the bottom of the problem. Some small householders will not have the resources to discharge the liabilities imposed on them and they will be seriously affected. In Committee, the Minister said that he would try to find a sympathetic way to deal with the problem. I hope that he will expand on that now.

Mr. John Greenway: Throughout the consideration of the Bill and, previously, the White Paper, the Government have said that it is not the intention of the Bill to create new liabilities. However, some legal opinion available to the Association of British Insurers suggests that new liabilities are being created. I must point out that that was the position as the Bill stood when it left Committee—without the raft of amendments that we are now considering, that have been previously considered or that are yet to come, and that have made or might make significant changes.
Owners of land who are not responsible for the contamination previously could not be made to repay the local authorities' costs to clean up that land. However, it has been suggested that under the Bill they may become liable for paying for the cleaning up of their land, even though they were not responsible for the contamination. That point was made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping).
The purpose of amendment No. 244, which stands in my name, is to remedy that problem. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being made a Privy Councillor. The Association of British Insurers, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have ail written to me on the understanding that I understand those matters. I am not sure whether their confidence is entirely


properly placed. They are grateful for how Ministers have responded to their concerns about the need to avoid, particularly in the insurance industry, the problems that have been experienced in the United States.

Ms Ruddock: I hope that I was not being inattentive at the outset of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but I did not hear him declare a parliamentary interest. I believe that he is a parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Insurance Brokers.

Mr. Greenway: I am indeed. But that interest has no relevance whatever to the amendment, because the Institute of Insurance Brokers has expressed no opinion either way on this measure. It is true that I have more than 20 years' experience of the insurance industry, and I slightly alluded to that when I said that people came to me on these matters because they thought that I understood them.
The Government have tried hard to ensure that the problems of clean-up costs do not fall on insurance companies, with the likelihood that they will no longer cover certain types of risk willingly. The problem now is that, given the number of amendments before the House, everyone will need to take a fresh legal opinion as to whether they have all the effects that we seek. But we also have the fall-back position that much of the detail of the Bill will be covered in regulations, as the hon. Members for Sherwood and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) said.
I note that the Government intend to try to meet that concern through some of their amendments. If the matter is not resolved by the Government amendments, there should continue to be discussions with appropriate parties—landowners, the bodies that represent them and the insurance industry—to ensure that we get it right. If we do, this legislation will do society and the country a great service by dealing with the intractable problem of how we pay for the clean-up of contaminated land. I simply ask that innocent subsequent landowners should not find themselves picking up the bill. They would pass it on to insurers when that likelihood need not have arisen.

Mr. Ian Pearson: I rise briefly on this issue because it has direct constituency relevance. As many hon. Members will be aware, the black country was at the heart of the industrial revolution, and the livelihoods of more than 1.2 million people in the black country are directly affected by the fortunes of business, by business confidence and by maintaining the equilibrium in land value, which supports so many businesses. In my constituency, more than 70 per cent. of land has prior industrial use. That applies to the black country as a whole. Many of the firms that have been important to our nation's success over the past 150 years, producing goods in the late 19th century, are sadly no longer with us. Neither are their owners.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who expressed his concern about home owners who occupy contaminated land. I extend that concern to businesses, particularly black country businesses, which have had major problems in that respect. Land values underpin a large number of companies in my constituency and are often their major asset on the balance sheet. I admit that I cannot fathom all the amendments before us, but the threat is that the Bill could affect the land value of companies in my

constituency and hence their net worth and potential viability. I do not want jobs in my constituency to be put needlessly on the line as a result of the Bill.
I thank the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment for meeting representatives from the business community in my constituency to discuss this issue. I am glad that they reassured us that they take the problem seriously. I hope that the future will bear witness to that and that the legislation will be soundly based as a result.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) is not alone in appreciating the complexities of this issue. We had some fun and games in Committee when we worked our way through the details in one form or another. I readily confess to the House that I do not pretend to be a master of them all.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley, West for his comments about the Prime Minister and my Secretary of State.

Mr. Elliot Morley: He needs all the help he can get.

Mr. Atkins: On the contrary, it demonstrates, if ever demonstration were needed, the Prime Minister's readiness to appreciate the great issues of the day, not least when they are led by the Richardson brothers.
The hon. Member for Dudley, West may know that I paid a visit, in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) and the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) to that area and we had an opportunity to listen to and talk to representatives of industry of all sorts and of chambers of commerce. I explained the Bill in part—not in whole because there were still some nuances which escaped them and me but which we have since been able to remedy.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his comments. We took a lot of trouble with organisations like the insurers, the bankers, Lloyd's, the British Property Federation and all those directly involved in some way with a contribution to make on this issue. I am also grateful to the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union, which both have a significant part to play.
As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), who commented on this issue in Committee, said, there is no easy solution to this problem, which is why the guidance is so important. He asked about the timing of the guidance. I cannot be precise, because we seek to ensure that all the organisations that I have mentioned and constituency Members of Parliament have an opportunity to put their case, as the hon. Member for Dudley, West did, on issues that affect their constituencies. The guidance is very important in that respect. Therefore, the consultation with which we must continue across the House and industry is significant.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the debate on this issue. I understand its importance, and we shall continue to pay urgent attention to the matters being discussed this evening.

Mr. Tipping: I look forward to the guidance being issued, but I hope that it will deal with three matters: first, hardship and people's ability to pay; secondly. the residual value of the land or property—to clean up a piece


of land or property and be left with something that does not meet the cost of the clean-up will cause real difficulties—and, thirdly, the advice that people took before buying the property. Many people will have taken advice from estate agents and surveyors and entered into a contract in good will, only to find that they are left with a liability. I hope that the guidance will address those key issues.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 126, in page 51. line 45, leave out first 'the' and insert 'each'.
No. 127, in page 51, line 45, leave out third 'the' and insert 'an'.
No. 128, in page 52, line 3, leave out from 'the' to end of line 11 and insert
'enforcing authority that another person is an appropriate person, the enforcing authority shall give notice to that other person—

(a) of the fact that the local authority has identified the land in question as contaminated land; and
(b) that he appears to the enforcing authority to be an appropriate person.'.

No. 129, in page 52, line 30, leave out 'any' and insert 'each'.
No. 130, in page 52, line 31, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'. —[Mr. Atkins.]

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 239, in page 52, line 35, leave out 'have regard to any' and insert 'act in accordance with;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will he convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 240, in page 55, line 27, leave out 'have regard to any' and insert 'act in accordance with;'.
No. 241, in page 66, line 1, leave out 'to' and insert 'act in accordance with.'.
No. 242, in page 73, line 2, leave out 'have regard to any' and insert 'act in accordance with;'.
No. 243, in page 73, line 25, leave out 'have regard to any' and insert 'act in accordance with;'.

8 pm

Mr. Greenway: The purpose of this small group of amendments is to try to overcome possible inconsistencies of approach by local authorities.
I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it is important that there is a consistent, nationwide approach by local authorities to their duties in regard to contaminated land. It has been suggested by the Association of British Insurers that local authorities should perhaps be required to "act in accordance with" all the guidance to be issued rather than simply having regard to it. I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me on that matter.

Mr. Atkins: The requirements of the contaminated land regime will be set out in primary legislation and in regulations. Guidance will provide further advice to authorities on certain of those requirements.
The normal provisions for guidance require that authorities should have "regard to" guidance. Some of the guidance under the contaminated land provisions has a stronger requirement that authorities should "act in accordance with" it. That requirement is the exception,

and not the rule. It is applied to the key functions relating to the definition of contaminated land, the local authorities' inspection duties and the determination of who should be liable when there are two or more "appropriate persons". Those are all central to the scope of the regime as a whole and to the pattern of liabilities under it, and in each case there are specific questions which are to be determined in accordance with the guidance or requirements to follow particular technical approaches and methods.
The hierarchy of the regulations and guidance are central to the operation of the new contaminated land regime. The provisions already require consultation before any guidance is issued. In some instances, parliamentary scrutiny is also required.
I should like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government would not seek to bring the main provisions in the contaminated land regime into force until the necessary guidance and regulations were in place. In any case, the regime will not be brought into force before the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency take up their full functions in April 1996. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend and I am sure that his comments will be warmly welcomed by all those who have expressed their concern about that issue. I am only too glad that I brought the matter to the House's attention. In view of my right hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 131, in page 55, line 6, leave out 'the' and insert
'each person who is an'.
No. 132, in page 55, line 10, at end insert—

'(1A) Different remediation notices requiring the doing of different things by way of remediation may be served on different persons in consequence of the presence of different substances in, on or under any land or waters.
(1B) Where two or more persons are appropriate persons in relation to any particular thing which is to be done by way of remediation, the remediation notice served on each of them shall state the proportion, determined under section 78F(5) below, of the cost of doing that thing which each of them respectively is liable to bear.'.

No. 133, in page 55, line 19, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'
No. 134, in page 55, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
'(4) Regulations may make provision for or in connection with—

(a) the form or content of remediation notices; or
(b) any steps of a procedural nature which are to be taken in connection with, or in consequence of, the service of a remediation notice.'.


No. 135, in page 55, line 33, after 'for' insert
'any particular thing which the enforcing authority determines is to be done by way of'.
No. 136, in page 55, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page 56 and insert—

'(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person, or any of the persons, who caused or knowingly permitted the substances, or any of the substances, by reason of which the contaminated land in question is such land to be in, on or under that land is an appropriate person.


(2A) A person shall only be an appropriate person by virtue of subsection (2) above in relation to things which are to be done by way of remediation which are to any extent referable to substances which he caused or knowingly permitted to be present in, on or under the contaminated land in question.
(3) If no person has, after reasonable inquiry, been found who is by virtue of subsection (2) above an appropriate person to bear responsibility for the things which are to be done by way of remediation, the owner or occupier for the time being of the contaminated land in question is an appropriate person.
(3A) If, in consequence of subsection (2A) above, there are things which are to be done by way of remediation in relation to which no person has, after reasonable inquiry, been found who is an appropriate person by virtue of subsection (2) above, the owner or occupier for the time being of the contaminated land in question is an appropriate person in relation to those things.
(4) Where two or more persons would, apart from this subsection, be appropriate persons in relation to any particular thing which is to be done by way of remediation, the enforcing authority shall determine in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State whether any, and if so which, of them is to be treated as not being an appropriate person in relation to that thing.
(5) Where two or more persons are appropriate persons in relation to any particular thing which is to be done by way of remediation, they shall be liable to bear the cost of doing that thing in proportions determined by the enforcing authority in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
(6) Any guidance issued for the purposes of subsection (4) or (5) above shall be issued in accordance with section 78Y below.
(7) A person who has caused or knowingly permitted any substance ("substance A") to be in, on or under any land shall also be taken for the purposes of this section to have caused or knowingly permitted there to be in, on or under that land any substance which is there as a result of a chemical reaction or biological process affecting substance A.
(8) A thing which is to be done by way of remediation may be regarded for the purposes of this Part as referable to the presence of any substance notwithstanding that the thing in question would not have to be done—

(a) in consequence only of the presence of that substance in any quantity; or
(b) in consequence only of the quantity of that substance which any particular person caused or knowingly permitted to be present.'.

No. 137, in page 56, line 19, at end insert—
'Grant of, and compensation for, rights of entry etc

78FA.—(1) A remediation notice may require an appropriate person to do things by way of remediation, notwithstanding that he is not entitled to do those things.
(2) Any person whose consent is required before any thing required by a remediation notice may be done shall grant, or join in granting, such rights in relation to any of the relevant land or waters as will enable the appropriate person to comply with any requirements imposed by the remediation notice.
(3) Before serving a remediation notice, the enforcing authority shall reasonably endeavour to consult every person who appears to the authority—

(a) to be the owner or occupier of any of the relevant land or waters, and
(b) to be a person who might be required by subsection (2) above to grant, or join in granting, any rights,

concerning the rights which that person may be so required to grant.
(4) Subsection (3) above shall not preclude the service of a remediation notice in any case where it appears to the enforcing authority that the contaminated land in question is in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that there is imminent danger of serious harm, or serious pollution of controlled waters, being caused.
(5) A person who grants, or joins in granting, any rights pursuant to subsection (2) above shall be entitled, on making

an application within such period as may be prescribed and in such manner as may be prescribed to such person as may be prescribed, to be paid by the appropriate person compensation of such amount as may be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of the regulations that may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above, regulations by virtue of that subsection may make such provision in relation to compensation under this section as may be made by regulations by virtue of subsection (4) of section 35A above in relation to compensation under that section.
(7) In this section, "relevant land or waters" means—

(a) the contaminated land in question;
(b) any controlled waters affected by that land; or
(c) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land or those waters.'.

No. 138, in page 56, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert�ž
'(a) the person on whom the notice is to be served,'.
No. 139, in page 56, line 26, leave out 'and'.
No. 140, in page 56, line 28, at end insert 'and
(d) any person of such other description as may be prescribed,'.
No. 141, in page 56, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) Regulations may make provision for, or in connection with, steps to be taken for the purposes of subsection (1) above.'.
No. 142, in page 57, line 41, leave out first 'any' and insert 'a'.
No. 143, in page 57, line 47, at end insert 'served on that person'.
No. 144, in page 57, line 48, leave out 'steps' and insert 'things'.
No. 145, in page 57, line 49, leave out 'taken' and insert 'done'.
No. 146, in page 57, line 51, at end insert 'on that person'.
No. 147, in page 57, line 52, leave out 'appropriate person' and insert
'person on whom the notice would be served'.
No. 148, in page 58, leave out lines 5 to 16 and insert—
'(5) Where the enforcing authority is precluded by virtue of section 78E(2) or (3) above from specifying in a remediation notice any particular thing by way of remediation which it would otherwise have specified in such a notice, the authority shall prepare and publish a document (in this Part referred to as a "remediation declaration") which shall record—

(a) the reasons why the authority would have specified that thing; and
(b) the grounds on which the authority is satisfied that it is precluded from specifying that thing in such a notice.'.

No. 149, in page 58, line 35, leave out 'taking or has taken' and insert 'doing or has done'.
No. 150, in page 58, line 36, leave out 'take, the steps' and insert 'do, the things'.
No. 151, in page 58, line 44, after 'notice' insert 'specifying the things there mentioned'.
No. 152, in page 58, line 45, leave out from 'served' to 'the' in line 46.
No. 153, in page 58, line 51, after 'notice' insert 'on an appropriate person'.
No. 154, in page 59, line 6, leave out 'the' and insert 'that'.
No. 155, in page 59, line 11, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert 'that'.
No. 156, in page 59, line 12, leave out 'steps' and insert 'things'.
No. 157, in page 59, leave out lines 14 to 24.
No. 158, in page 59, line 32, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
No. 159, in page 59, line 33, leave out '78F(3)(a)' and insert '78F(3) or (3A)'.
No. 180, in page 60, leave out lines 4 to 19 and insert—

'(4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part in question became abandoned after 31st December 1999.
(4A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) above whether a mine or part of a mine became abandoned before, on or after 31st December 1999 in a case where the mine or part has become abandoned on two or more occasions, of which—

(a) at least one falls on or before that date, and
(b) at least one falls after that date,

the mine or part shall be regarded as becoming abandoned after that date (but without prejudice to the operation of subsection (3) above in relation to that mine or part at, or in relation to, any time before the first of those occasions which falls after that date).
(4B) Where, immediately before a part of a mine becomes abandoned, that part is the only part of the mine not falling to be regarded as abandoned for the time being, the abandonment of that part shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) or (4A) above as constituting the abandonment of the mine, but only of that part of it.'.

No. 181, in page 60, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 61 and insert—
'(7) In this section, "mine" has the same meaning as in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.'.
No. 160, in page 62, line 11, leave out from 'that' to second 'person' in line 12.
No. 161, in page 62, line 38, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
No. 162, in page 63, line 1, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
No. 163, in page 63, line 2, leave out from 'made' to end of line 3 and insert�ž

'(aa) the cases in which, grounds on which, court or tribunal to which, or person at whose instance, an appeal against a decision of a magistrates' court or sheriff court in pursuance of an appeal under subsection (1) shall lie; or
(b) the procedure on an appeal under subsection (1) above or on an appeal by virtue of paragraph (aa) above.'.

No. 164, in page 63, line 30, at end insert�ž
'(6) This section, so far as relating to appeals to the Secretary of State, is subject to section 112 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals etc).'.
No. 165, in page 63, line 34, at end insert—
'(lA) Where the remediation notice in question is one which was required by section 78E(1B) above to state, in relation to the requirement which has not been complied with, the proportion of the cost involved which the person charged with the offence is liable to bear, it shall be a defence for that person to prove that the only reason why he has not complied with the requirement is that one or more of the other persons who are liable to bear a proportion of that cost refused, or was not able, to comply with the requirement.'.
No. 166, in page 64, line 3, at end insert—
'(3A) If the enforcing authority is of the opinion that proceedings for an offence under this section would afford an ineffectual remedy against a person who has failed to comply with any of the requirements of a remediation notice which that authority has served on him, that authority may take proceedings in the High Court or, in Scotland, in any court of competent jurisdiction, for the purpose of securing compliance with the remediation notice.'.

No. 167, in page 64, line 33, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'
No. 168, in page 64, line 47, leave out 'what is appropriate' and insert 'some particular thing'.
No. 169, in page 65, line 3, leave out 'so doing' and insert 'doing that thing'.
No. 170, in page 65, line 7, leave out 'the appropriate person' and insert
'an appropriate person in relation to any particular thing'.
No. 171, in page 65, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert—
'(e) in a case falling within paragraph (e) or (f) of that subsection, the particular thing mentioned in the paragraph in question.'.
No. 172, in page 65, line 40, leave out 'anything' and insert 'any particular thing'.
No. 173, in page 65, line 43, at end insert
'or, if there are two or more appropriate persons in relation to the thing in question, from those persons in proportions determined pursuant to section 78F(5) above'.
No. 174, in page 67, line 36, leave out '78P.-(1)' and insert—

'78P—(A1) If, in a case where a local authority has served a remediation notice, the contaminated land in question becomes a special site, the appropriate Agency may adopt the remediation notice and, if it does so,—

(a) it shall give notice of its decision to adopt the remediation notice to the appropriate person and to the local authority;
(b) the remediation notice shall have effect, as from the time at which the appropriate Agency decides to adopt it, as a remediation notice given by that Agency; and
(c) the validity of the remediation notice shall not be affected by—


(i) the contaminated land having become a special site;
(ii) the adoption of the remediation notice by the appropriate Agency; or
(iii) anything in paragraph (b) above.

(A2) Where a local authority has, by virtue of section 78M above, begun to do any thing, or any series of things, by way of remediation—

(a) the authority may continue doing that thing, or that series of things, by virtue of that section, notwithstanding that the contaminated land in question becomes a special site; and
(b) section 78N above shall apply in relation to the reasonable cost incurred by the authority in doing that thing or those things as if that authority were the enforcing authority.

(1)'

No. 175, in page 68, line 5, leave out 'this section' and insert
'subsection (1) or (2) above'.
No. 176, in page 69, line 36, at end insert—
'(6A) Where information of any description is excluded by virtue of section 78S below from any register maintained under this section, a statement shall be entered in the register indicating the existence of information of that description.'.
No. 45, in page 71, line 35, leave out from beginning to '(3)' in line 44 and insert—

'(3A) An appeal under subsection (3) above shall, if either party to the appeal so requests or the Secretary of State so decides, take or continue in the form of a hearing (which must be held in private).
(3B) Subsection (10) of section 15 above shall apply in relation to an appeal under subsection (3) above as it applies in relation to an appeal under that section.
(4) Subsection'.

No. 46, in page 72, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.
No. 177, in page 74, leave out lines 16 to 23 and insert—

'(3) A person acting in a relevant capacity—

(a) shall not thereby be personally liable, under this Part, to bear the whole or any part of the cost of doing any thing by way of remediation, unless that thing is to any extent referable to substances whose presence in, on or under the contaminated land in question is a result of any act done or omission made by him which it was unreasonable for a person acting in that capacity to do or make; and
(b) shall not thereby be guilty of an offence under or by virtue of section 78L above unless the requirement which has not been complied with is a requirement to do some particular thing for which he is personally liable to bear the whole or any part of the cost.

(3A) In subsection (3) above, "person acting in a relevant capacity" means—

(a) a person acting as an insolvency practitioner, within the meaning of section 388 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (including that section as it applies in relation to an insolvent partnership by virtue of any order made under section 421 of that Act);
(b) the official receiver acting in a capacity in which he would regarded as acting as an insolvency practitioner within the meaning of section 388 of the Insolvency Act 1986 if subsection (5) of that section were disregarded;
(c) the official receiver acting as receiver or manager;
(d) a person acting as a special manager under section 177 or 370 of the Insolvency Act 1986;
(e) the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985);
(f) a person acting as a receiver or receiver and manager—

(i) under or by virtue of any enactment; or
(ii) by virtue of his appointment as such by an order of a court or by any other instrument.'.



No. 178, in page 75, line 7, after '78F(4)' insert 'or (5)'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 57

ABANDONED MINES: ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendments made: 182, in page 76, line 30, leave out'includets—and insert—
'(A) subject to paragraph (B) below, includes—'.
No. 183, in page 76, line 45, at end insert 'but
(B) does not include—

(i) any disclaimer under section 178 or 315 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power of liquidator, or trustee of a bankrupt's estate, to disclaim onerous property) by the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity; or
(ii) the abandonment of any rights, interests or liabilities by the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985);'.

No. 184, in page 76, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 77.
No. 185, in page 77, line 11, at end insert—
' "acting in a compulsory capacity", in the case of the official receiver, means acting as—

(a) liquidator of a company;
(b) receiver or manager of a bankrupt's estate, pursuant to section 287 of the Insolvency Act 1986;
(c) trustee of a bankrupt's estate;
(d) liquidator of an insolvent partnership;
(e) trustee of an insolvent partnership;
(f) trustee, or receiver or manager, of the insolvent estate of a deceased person.'



No 186, in page 77, line 12, at end insert—
' "the official receiver" has the same meaning as it has in the Insolvency Act 1986 by virtue of section 399(1) of that Act;'.
No. 187, in page 77, line 31, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'.
No. 188, in page 77, line 43, at end insert—
'(4A) Where the operator of a mine is—

(a) the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity, or
(b) the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985),

he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above by reason of any failure to give the notice required by subsection (1) above if, as soon as reasonably practicable (whether before or after the abandonment), he gives to the Agency notice of the abandonment or proposed abandonment, containing such information as may be prescribed.'.
No. 189, in page 77, line 43, at end insert—
'(4B) Where a person gives notice under subsection (1), (4)(b) or (4A) above, he shall publish prescribed particulars of, or relating to, the notice in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality where the mine is situated.'.—[Mr. Atkins]

Clause 58

ABANDONED MINES: SCOTLAND

Amendments made: No. 214, in page 78, line 36, leave out 'includes—' and insert—
'(A) subject to paragraph (B) below, includes—'.
No. 215, in page 79, line 3, at end insert 'but
(B) does not include—

(a) the abandonment of any rights, interests or liabilities by the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985); or
(b) any disclaimer under section 178 or 315 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (power of liquidator, or trustee of bankrupt's estate, to disclaim onerous property) by the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity;'.

No. 216, in page 79, leave out lines 5 to 14.
No. 217, in page 79, line 16, after 'requires' insert—
' "acting in a compulsory capacity", in the case of the official receiver, means acting as—

(a) liquidator of a company;
(b) receiver or manager of a bankrupt's estate, pursuant to section 287 of the Insolvency Act 1986;
(c) trustee of a bankrupt's estate;
(d) liquidator of an insolvent partnership;
(e) trustee of an insolvent partnership;
(f) trustee, or receiver or manager, of the insolvent estate of a deceased person;

"The official receiver" has the same meaning as it has in the Insolvency Act 1986 by virtue of section 399(1) of that Act;'.
No. 218, in page 79, line 32, leave out '(2)' and insert '(1)'.
No. 219, in page 79, line 44, at end insert—
'(4A) Where the operator of a mine is—

(a) the Accountant in Bankruptcy acting as permanent or interim trustee in a sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985); or
(b) the official receiver acting in a compulsory capacity,

he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3) above by reason of any failure to give the notice required by subsection (1) above if, as soon as is reasonably practicable (whether before or after the abandonment), he gives to SEPA notice of the abandonment or proposed abandonment, containing such information as may be prescribed.


(4B) Where a person gives notice under subsection (1), (4)(b) or (4A) above, he shall publish prescribed particulars of, or relating to, the notice in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality where the mine is situated.'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 59

AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 89 AND 161 OF THE WATER RESOURCES ACT 1991

Amendments made: No. 190, in page 80, line 22, at end insert 'former'.
No. 191, in page 81, line 12, at end insert former'.— [Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 60

PURPOSES OF NATIONAL PARKS

Mr. Atkins: I beg to move amendment No. 193, in page 81, line 35, leave out 'quiet enjoyment and understanding' and insert 'understanding and enjoyment'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 267, in page 81, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section "quiet enjoyment" means enjoyment in ways which are not likely to disturb the tranquillity, or otherwise detract from the special qualities, of the areas in question; but no person shall be under a duty to prevent, reduce or restrict noise in any such area by reason only of the reference in that paragraph to the promotion of opportunities for the quiet enjoyment of those areas.".'
Government amendments Nos. 194 and 195.

Mr. Atkins: I am tempted to congratulate you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, on racing through that lot of amendments. We just about kept up with you, one way or another.
I preface my remarks on this aspect of the Bill by saying that, following the amendment that appeared in another place, which inserted the word "quiet" to give the effect of "quiet enjoyment" of national parks, we spent a considerable amount of time discussing that proposal in Committee. I understand and appreciate the considerable interest that was expressed in another place about the issue. Many views were expressed not only by those with an interest in the national parks but by those who were interested from a legal point of view. The Law Lords and others, for example, argued about whether the issue was well defined by use of the word "quiet".
I must say that I was, initially, sympathetic to the points made, but hon. Members know that some concern was expressed about exactly what "quiet" meant. Many hon. Members will be aware that, although the notional attraction of the word "quiet" in the context of quiet enjoyment of the parks has some appeal, plenty of noisy things go on in those parks, not least industry. I know, for example, that there is quite a lot of quarrying for slate in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The same applies in other hon. Members' constituencies, and they appreciate that such quarrying occasionally involves the use of explosives and a lot of noise of one form or another.
As I said in Committee, I was most impressed by the problems that were put to me by the Royal Automobile Club. Hon. Members will know that, as a former sports

Minister, I am only too well aware of the importance of the main RAC rally, which attracts more people, numerically, in terms of participation and support, than almost any other sporting event in the United Kingdom. The RAC also licenses a number of other rallies around the country, all of which are conducted to a high standard and are much loved and enjoyed by many people.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: Not for the moment.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh.

Mr. Atkins: I will give way, but not for a moment.
It is also the case that many people, who understand and appreciate rallying, were concerned about the amendment passed in another place, regardless of politics. That was not a party political point. Representatives of the RAC visited me and said that they were unhappy with the implications of the definition of "quiet enjoyment".
Therefore we went away, as the House and the Committee know, to try to find an amendment that defined "quiet". We had considerable difficulty and, when we approached the Committee with the amendment that I proposed, it was obvious that Members were unhappy with the definition that I came up with. I remember hon. Members expressing that unease for several reasons, as a result of which, and subsequent to which, I received a fair amount of correspondence and many telephone calls and other communications from organisations that were worried, of which I have mentioned but one. Again we went away, as I promised to do in Committee, to find a way of defining "quiet".
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has been sitting there waiting to intervene, and I want to give her an opportunity to do so.

Mrs. Campbell: I want to pick up the arguments that the Minister made earlier about noisy activity, because he must be aware that promoting "quiet enjoyment" is in no way the same thing as banning noisy activity. I do not understand why he used those examples in relation to that amendment, unless he is confused about those two issues.

Mr. Atkins: There is no confusion. Many people believe that "quiet" means what they think that it means——to keep noise down——and that the enjoyment of national parks means cutting down noise in one form or another. Enough people were worried about that for me to need to consider carefully whether the amendment that I was then proposing in Committee would solve the problem.
I remind Opposition Members——I am sure that Conservative Members do not need reminding——that a Law Lord said, following the passing of the amendment adding "quiet" to "enjoyment", that that was bad law, that it was capable of misinterpretation or many interpretations and that an amendment was required to define what "quiet" meant. We tried. We considered it carefully, and my officials and Parliamentary Counsel struggled to find ways and means whereby we could assuage the anxieties that were expressed to me by a variety of organisations as well as Conservative colleagues in the House and in another place.
In those circumstances, we tried extremely hard and, before Report, I considered several variations on many amendments. We even nearly reached the stage of tabling one, hut grave anxieties continued to be expressed to me


by the motor sports industry. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale came to visit me. He wears many hats, one of which is his love of motor sports, as well as representing one national park and living in another.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is saying that he wants the legislation to be perfectly clear and not have two meanings.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is unusually succinct and he makes the argument extremely well.
I was demonstrating that we tried extremely hard to find a way of defining "quiet" and, in the final analysis, were unable to do so. It seemed to me that, in the circumstances, the best thing to do was to revert to what was the case when the Bill was presented in another place. That is why the amendment is tabled in the terms in which it is.
I hope that the Bill will be acceptable to all the people who made genuine and strongly felt representations to me about the inability to be sure that "quiet enjoyment" as it presently is in the Bill means what it says, and about what a threat it may pose, if it does, to those people. I do not believe that withdrawing the word "quiet" will cause the anxiety that many Opposition Members may say that it will do. It will certainly revert to the position that pertained before, and I hope that my right hon and hon. Friends will understand that and he able to explain satisfactorily to their constituents what we have tried to do in the amendment.

Mr. Morley: If the Minister could not find a definition of "quiet enjoyment", he did not try very hard. To try to help him, we have tabled amendment No. 267, which gives a definition of "quiet enjoyment". I suspect that the Minister may well have seen those words before, and he may well have recognised that they meet some of the points that he made in terms of defining what that phrase means.
Although I am sure that Law Lords have their uses, they are not always absolutely right. I know that the Council for the Protection of Rural England has examined the legal definition of "quiet enjoyment" as it applies to such things as tenancy agreements, of which the Minister will be well aware, and that should not be a problem in the way that it is worded in the Bill.
Opposition Members strongly oppose those amendments which remove "quiet enjoyment" from the Bill. One of the keystones of the Edwards committee report, which was widely welcomed and widely consulted, was the implementation of the words "quiet enjoyment" in providing a framework for what national parks should be about.
In January 1992, in their response to the Edwards committee, the Government said:
The Government also welcomes the proposed references to quiet enjoyment and understanding as having special relevance to the National Parks.
It is interesting that that welcome in 1992 appeared to have cooled by the time that the Bill was presented, and that that definition was put in the Bill only when there

was a vote on that issue in another place. It shows that one cannot trust what the Government say in their responses to committees such as that.
On 26 May 1995, the Secretary of State for the Environment, speaking to the national park authorities conference in Keswick, said that he was optimistic that the phrase "quiet enjoyment" would remain in the Bill with a positive definition. As we have seen, no positive definition has been forthcoming, and what there was, was withdrawn by the Minister in Committee. It shows that, when it comes to it, one cannot trust what the Government say, and many people will have taken note of that during the passage of the Bill.
We strongly protest that those amendments were tabled only two working days before Report, giving very little time for response by the many organisations which have a legitimate interest in the national parks and that part of the Bill.
In Committee, as the Minister outlined in moving the amendments, he claimed that the problem was definition. In Committee, we had a considerable discussion about that, with all sorts of what I can only describe as nonsense about what those words "quiet enjoyment" would prohibit. We heard that they would prevent chain saws being used in forestry; we even heard that they would prevent camouflaged soldiers popping out of bushes, on the grounds that that might interfere with people's enjoyment. The person who mentioned that did not say what enjoyment that activity might interrupt. We have also heard about the RAC rally and other motor sports and the worries of people who take part in those.
Of course those people are right to have worries. They are right to explore what that phrase means. However, there is no reason why the Minister could not provide ministerial guidance to the national parks about the implementation of the legislation. Events such as rallies, which can be intrusive on occasions, have been managed successfully by organisations such as the Countryside Commission, and by the National Trust, which has written to express its grave concern about that withdrawal.
The National Trust has said that it understands that "quiet enjoyment" does not preclude certain activities taking place, but should be taken to mean that national parks should not have the statutory duty of promoting those activities. Indeed, the trust, while emphasising quiet and unobtrusive enjoyment on its properties, accommodates and manages intrusive activities as well where appropriate. Having said that, however, it recommends that activities that are inappropriate to the purpose of national parks should be subject to some form of restriction.
That appears a reasonable and responsible approach to the issue. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept that and deal with it in terms of that guidance. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), it was made clear in Committee that the words "promoting quiet enjoyment" would not give the national park authorities any new or extra powers to go out and stop any activity. They would only have to work within the existing laws and powers that they have at present. There is nothing new about that.
Although we believe that guidance can be provided without a statutory definition, we have offered the Government an amendment, using a definition that we know was originally proposed in another place.
It is a tragedy that the Government are trying to break the cross-party consensus that welcomed the Edwards report. We remind the Government that the Dower report—which set up the framework for national parks in 1945—said:
Those who come to National Parks should be such as wish to enjoy and cherish the beauty and quietude of unspoilt country and to take their recreation, active or passive, in ways that do not impair the beauty or quietude, nor spoil the enjoyment of them by others".
The Edwards committee adopted those admirable and important principles in its report and in the concept of promoting quiet enjoyment which remains on the face of the Bill.
In a hot and noisy House of Commons, with a pervading atmosphere of fevered speculation about the Conservative party leadership election, I would have thought that protecting precious quiet areas would be attractive to the Government. Instead, the Government ignore consensus, go back on their word and offend millions who live and work in national parks and millions more who support organisations such as the National Trust and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and the countryside and conservation bodies—including the Government's own statutory adviser, the Countryside Commission—and refuse to protect those precious principles.
If the Government cannot accept our amendments, we will oppose their amendments and hope that the other place takes note of the debate and attempts to replace the measures in the Bill so as to protect the principle of quiet enjoyment. It has a right and a responsibility to do that, and the vast majority of people in the country expect it to be done.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: This is an important amendment. There has been considerable debate about the issue and about the meaning of the word "quiet" during the Committee stage and even before that. I understand the Government's predicament. What is important is not necessarily the words in the Bill, but what happens in the national parks. We must consider how we will preserve for the future the quality of national parks and the traditional activities that take place within them.
We all know that rallies have been held in national parks and that grouse shooting certainly goes on in some parks, which helps to maintain the habitat of the moorland. I have been informed by the National Trust that it organises certain pre-arranged noisy activities which it feels it is able to manage in the national park environment. The Government face a genuine problem because it may be argued that none of those activities could be described as "quiet", even though they have been held in national parks for a long time.
We must decide how to retain the quality of national parks while allowing traditional activities to continue. It is extremely difficult to define the word "quiet" in those circumstances, so perhaps we should look for another solution. We should not be hidebound by that word, but we must look for some way of preserving the quiet atmosphere in national parks.
The National Trust has suggested that traditional activities—although they may be noisy—should be accepted and that new activities that are very obtrusive should be excluded. My hon. Friend does not necessarily

need to defend those traditional activities, but he must address how to control the really obtrusive and intolerable activities which destroy the quality of national parks and which prevent people from enjoying the parks. There must be some means of doing that. Therefore, when he replies to the debate, I ask my hon. Friend to explain how he plans to stop the truly intolerable activities that destroy the special qualities of our valued national parks.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am disappointed at the way in which the Government appear to be backing away from the issue. Everyone recognises that many noisy activities take place in the countryside, and I do not think that anyone who has been promoting the clause wants to stop them occurring. Some natural phenomena are pretty noisy. If one is a short distance from a waterfall, one can hardly hear oneself think. When lambs are separated from the ewes in the late summer, the noise of the animals calling to each other can be very loud indeed. A whole series of traditional customs, such as morris dancing, are noisy activities.
None of the organisations that support the insertion of the clause in the Bill objects to such activities. Those groups are not trying to get at motor sports or water-skiing. They make it absolutely clear that they recognise that such activities have gone on in many areas for a long time and that they do not want them to stop as a result of the legislation. They wish to emphasise the role and duty of national parks; they are concerned with promotion.
I hope that the Government will examine the issue again. When the legislation goes back to the House of Lords, I hope that the Government will not spend so much time worrying about defining "quiet", but will instead put more emphasis on the word "promote". According to my interpretation of the clause, national parks have a duty to encourage those activities which may be conducted quietly in the countryside. The national parks should promote, encourage and facilitate those activities. They should certainly not ban them. The Government can get out of the present difficulty by putting the emphasis on defining "promoting and encouraging" activities.
It will be very sad if the Government drop the clause. Some organisations are worried that certain activities may be banned rather than promoted, and there is a danger that, if the clause is excluded from the Bill, some people will ask the national parks to encourage noisy and disruptive activities. That would be a disastrous message to send to the community.
I plead with the Government, even at this late stage, to try to solve the problem. They should put the emphasis not on trying to define "quiet"—I understand the problems in that regard—but on defining the word "promote", which is what most people are concerned about. A primary duty of national parks should be encouraging the development of quiet enjoyment rather than being concerned with banning this or that. I do not believe that banning activities will work; we must achieve our aim through persuasion.
I believe that many people who are involved in noisy sports should look at ways of doing them more quietly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) may laugh, but quieter boats have been developed for water skiing. It is in everyone's interest to look for ways to reduce noise levels. However, I do not believe that our efforts should lead to bans because bans


do not work. Enjoyment of the countryside depends on people's willingness to obey the law, and if too many activities are banned, people will simply do them illegally. They will be forced to enjoy their activity in another area and the problem will simply be transferred.
I plead with the Government to try to sort out the problem and to put the emphasis on defining "promote" rather than "quiet". They must encourage the national parks to find ways to allow people to continue to enjoy activities in the countryside without causing noise and upsetting others.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) does not believe that many of the people who are keen for the words "quiet enjoyment" to remain in the Bill want to put a stop on activities about which concerns have been expressed. He may be right, but people engaged in quarrying, farming, shooting and other activities are concerned about the zealot who may use those words in the courts for exactly the opposite purpose, to stop such activities.
Some years ago, one of my constituents moved to a secluded dale because he wanted quiet, and he objected to local farmers whistling up sheep dogs. That constituent caused great irritation with his complaints. That is the sort of thing that can happen when a total zealot is involved.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) does not believe that the Government have tried hard to find a way of avoiding removal of the words "quiet enjoyment". Because of my anxiety about those two words on behalf of my constituents, I know for a fact that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister tried exceptionally hard to keep those words in the Bill. I am convinced that it is impossible to devise a way of retaining them while protecting historic and traditional activities from the zealot. I can give that assurance because of discussions with my right hon. Friend, when he was kind enough to explain that he tried extremely hard.

Mr. Morley: We do not support zealotry or the extremes that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Amendment No. 267 states:
no person shall be under a duty to prevent, reduce or restrict noise in any such area by reason only of the reference in that paragraph to the promotion of opportunities for the quiet enjoyment of those areas.
Does not that meet the right hon. Gentleman's requirements?

Mr. Jopling: I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers for a number of organisations have said that they have been unable to find similar wording that fits the Bill. I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that the Government have done the right thing. I am totally opposed to idiots who make unnecessary noise in national parks. I declared on Second Reading my interest as having the honour to be president of the Auto Cycle Union, the governing body of all motor cycle sport. I am totally opposed to idiots who ride or drive around national parks making a vast amount of noise. Their activities totally infuriate me. Most such individuals are not taking part in organised activities. I have always encouraged the Auto Cycle Union to take the strongest measures against anyone who makes unnecessary noise.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I have seen three sets of counsel's opinion from different organisations, and I also recall the words of Lord Justice Akner in the other place. They all said that the Government's intention was potentially flawed and that zealots could have exploited such wording. I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister worked extremely hard to include the words in question but that legal opinion was against him.

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend's intervention is extremely telling. I am anxious that the zealot could get at a number of activities such as quarrying and agriculture. The National Farmers Union states:
We therefore consider that the Government has taken the correct decision to invite the House to restore the Bill to its original wording of 'promoting … understanding and enjoyment' by means of amendments 193–195, and would urge their acceptance.
The Country Landowners Association takes a similar view:
Clarification is still needed that the power in the Bill to promote 'quiet enjoyment' does not constitute a new power to control or ban current or other acceptable activities.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that new activities are to be seen in national parks and the grounds of stately homes? National parks are not fossilised and frozen in history but develop. They Offer activities such as open air concerts and firework displays, which may not have taken place in the past but are popular today. If the words "quiet enjoyment" were in the Bill, such events could be in danger.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to other activities, some of which affect employment. There has just been a long inquiry into the Lake District planning board's proposal to impose a 10 mph speed limit on Lake Windemere—the only lake left in the district where power boats are allowed. We have reached the stage where a sensible management arrangement can be agreed, which would allow water sports to continue by controlling zoning, noise, timing, competence, insurance and, above all, by providing adequate policing and licensing.
I fear that many hundreds of jobs on Lake Windemere in my constituency would be in jeopardy if the words "quiet enjoyment" remained in the Bill and somebody could argue that all moves towards a management agreement were voided. That would be a huge waste of time and immensely unfair to the hundreds of my constituents who depend for their livelihoods on water sports.

Mr. Ainger: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to convince the House that Lake District board members would undo all their work in establishing excellent arrangements for Lake Windemere and risk hundreds of jobs'? Is he suggesting that members of the park authority would consider such action?

Mr. Jopling: That is precisely what they did. They agreed, against the advice of the board's officials, to impose a 10 mph limit on the lake, without making any studies of the number of jobs involved. That was one of the most irresponsible decisions taken by the Lake District planning board in the 31 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.
I refer the House to another example, involving Swaledale in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I know that dale well, and a significant part of its economy depends on grouse shooting. It has to pay keepers and has the expense of finding people to take part in shoots. Without the revenue from foreigners and others who come to shoot, it would have been impossible for Lord Peel to carry out his wonderful work over the years in conserving the grouse. Without that activity and revenue, that species would have been under much greater pressure than it is at present.
It would be easy for our friend the zealot to go to court and say, "How can anybody begin to argue that grouse shooting is not an infringement of quiet enjoyment?" We would have been taking a great risk if we had not made sure that the legislation offered proper protection against the zealot. I applaud my right hon. Friend's courage in agreeing that the words "quiet enjoyment" are best left out of the Bill.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am a little bit puzzled about the idea of promoting quiet sports and quiet enjoyment. Is it suggested that one must be rowdy to enjoy even a quiet activity? Are we not on the wrong side of the argument when we speak about promoting quiet enjoyment?

Mr. Jopling: Of course it does not follow that quiet enjoyment and quiet activities go hand in hand. Some activities are quiet and some are not. Thousands of people come to my constituency to walk and enjoy the incomparable scenery: others come to do other things. I do not see why legislation should exclude from national parks activities that may be noisy. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, and I wrote it down, that some activities are noisy. But it is not the business of the House to ban them and put them out of existence. I congratulate the Government on their amendments, which have my full support.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: There is considerable interest in this issue in all parts of the House and passions have been aroused as a result. By trying to remove the words "quiet enjoyment" from the clause the Government are sending the worst possible message to the outside world about their intentions. The Bill was amended in the Lords, where the words "quiet enjoyment" were introduced. There was a long debate in Committee on the issue, during which the Minister defended the use of those words. Government vacillation at this stage will give rise to total bewilderment among people outside about what exactly is going on.
In Committee, the Minister gave an undertaking to clarify the meaning of "quiet enjoyment". As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, when the Secretary of State addressed the national parks conference only a month ago in May, he confirmed the Government's commitment to the promotion of quiet enjoyment. He said he was optimistic that a solution could be found to enable the words to remain in the Bill.
I can understand the Government changing tack when they change Prime Minister, which is what they may do in the next few weeks, but to change tack when there is no change of Prime Minister or Secretary of State is totally peculiar. Many people will find it strange.
We are debating not just physical recreation but spiritual refreshment and renewal in national parks. That needs peace and quiet, and the reason it has aroused such passion is that, for many of us who lead turbulent and busy lives, going to national parks and being able to enjoy a quiet activity is appreciated and valued. National parks are about promoting activities that cause no lasting environmental damage and do not intrude on the quiet enjoyment of others.
The examples quoted by hon. Members of people objecting to perfectly reasonable activities could surely be circumvented by a reasonable definition of quiet enjoyment. There must be ways to define what a reasonable person would regard as quiet activity. The examples quoted in Committee of groups of noisy ramblers laughing and shouting would not be seen as objectionable by a reasonable person. Someone who objects to a farmer whistling to his dogs is not a reasonable person. Such examples are spurious, and do not present a true picture of what the majority of people want.
8.45 pm
As I said in an intervention, the promotion of quiet enjoyment is not equivalent to a ban on any activity in national parks. The speeches of some hon. Members have supposed that the words "quiet enjoyment" would give rise to a ban on activities that people find enjoyable and which do not cause undue disturbance to others. It is important that the words "promotion" and "regulation" should not be confused in the way that they are being confused by Conservative Members. We are not debating a ban on field sports or on shooting, although I would certainly vote to ban fox hunting, hare coursing and deer stalking if I had the opportunity to do so. However, in this debate I am not being given that opportunity.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Lady will know from our discussions in Committee that I have a great deal of sympathy for her case. However, in her support for noisy and cackling groups of cagouled ramblers and in her pseud townie approach to Wordsworthian countryside epics, she is undermining the case that she tries to make.

Mrs. Campbell: I was born and brought up in the middle of the Yorkshire Pennines. I spent much of my youth there and did not leave until I went to university. Therefore, I am not a townie by upbringing or habit. I spend a great deal of my time in the country and I appreciate and enjoy it as much as anybody else. The hon. Gentleman's criticism is totally unjustified.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many townies value national parks and support their existence? For many townies a national park is the only open space where they can get the fresh air and quiet enjoyment to which, I would have thought, they are entitled.

Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. I should not have allowed myself to be deflected by the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) whose argument is often produced by those who favour field sports. Their case is that the only people who can possibly oppose them are those who were born


and brought up in towns. That is obviously false and I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the chance to make that clear.
The promotion of quiet enjoyment does not give national parks authorities any new powers to control noisy activities, much as some people would like to do that. It simply provides a context for the management of national parks in circumstances where conflicts between different types of recreation arise. We must see that in context.
The Labour party accepts that the present wording in clause 60 may not be ideal, but there would have been enormous value in inserting a definition that gave some precision to the words "quiet enjoyment". I find it difficult to believe that the parliamentary counsel and lawyers could not come up with something that would have been viewed as reasonable by a large percentage of the population.
The removal of the word "quiet" at this stage represents the worst of all possible outcomes. The Government are seen not only to be vacillating on the issue, but to be presenting a message to the outside world that they have abandoned the promotion of quiet enjoyment. That will be far more unpopular than they realise.

Mr. John Greenway: I shall endeavour to be brief. My right hon. Friend the Minister has faced a difficulty in trying to deal with the complex issue of the phrase "quiet enjoyment", and all those of us who represent national parks—most of the North York Moors national park is in my constituency—have had the same problem. We have had to try and balance the interests of people who genuinely want to promote more quietness and tranquillity in national parks with those of people who, also reasonably, have concerns about the word "quiet" and about the legal advice that has been given on the general court interpretation of the phrase "quiet enjoyment". It is important that, on issues of this sort, we try to strike a balance of fairness between clearly conflicting arguments.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On the legal interpretation of the words "quiet enjoyment", is my hon. Friend aware of Lord Ackner's words in the other place? He said that "quiet enjoyment" in legal terms means something different. It means physical interference between landlords and tenants. This place would be passing bad, unclear law if it were to include the words "quiet enjoyment" in this context, which means something totally different in legal parlance.

Mr. Greenway: We have discussed that in this debate but my hon. Friend makes his point firmly and strongly. I do not think that there is any need for me to add to it.
I want to concentrate on what the Bill will say if the Government's amendment is passed. We are in danger of thinking that what will be left on the face of the Bill will be worthless. On the contrary, the first point to make is that understanding and enjoyment, as opposed to quiet enjoyment and understanding, and the promotion of opportunities for those things are not exclusive, but complementary to the requirements for conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. When we take those two things together, we have a formidable tool for the national park committees, not just to ensure tranquillity generally and conservation of national park countryside, landscape, and wildlife, but to promote understanding.
There is insufficient understanding of the working life of people in national parks. That is certainly the case in my constituency in north Yorkshire. Their working life is not understood. I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that, when people talk about banning fox-hunting, they do not understand that, for example, the Saltersgate and Farndale hunts probably go out only two or three times a year and on foot, and that they involve not the rich, landed gentry sitting on horses and enjoying a big social event, but working people.
Eventually, when we come to readdress all this in the fulness of time, we will perhaps look back and think that we spent far too much time worrying about the word "quiet" and not enough time attending to the role of the national parks in promoting understanding of the life and cultural heritage of the park. I want the Government to encourage people to do that more. When it comes to having to come down on one side or the other in this conflicting argument, in my book the people who work and live in the park are the people of whom we have to take the most notice. They generally have grave misgivings about the word "quiet".
The only real complaint that I have had about anything going on in North York Moors national park—if we put low-flying RAF jets to one side—is a serious problem. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has also struggled to try to do something about it. It involves the mess and damage caused by four-wheel drive vehicles. When we have finished with this legislation, we need to get the national park committees to obtain legal opinion on whether the new provision will enable us to do something about such vehicles. Frankly, the mess that they are making on some of the bridleways in the North York Moors national park, and, I dare say, elsewhere, in no way conserves or enhances natural beauty.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The gap between the two sides of the House is narrower than it appears. For the most part, everyone is struggling to achieve broadly the same ends and the debate is around the best way to do that. On the comments of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) about the development of four-wheel drive vehicles, that seems to go to the heart of how I interpret the clause. The proposal is not about addressing the traditions in the countryside and things that have gone on over many years. Those would not change, because to change them would be a reversal, not a promotion of new activity. We understand that the proposal goes to the heart of the promotion of new activities.
There is a constant process—through new technologies, modernisation, mechanisation, the increasing wealth of individuals and their ability to buy four-wheel drive vehicles and the rest of it—of moving into uses of national parks and other parts of the countryside that did not exist before and that, unfortunately, are often noisy. The argument for quiet enjoyment goes to the heart of how we see the future development of the national parks in terms of the competing demands that are on them, and in terms of which competing demands the national parks should seek to promote.
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman or any other Conservative Member disagrees with that concern or that approach, but the disagreement comes down to how we deal with the amendment. In that respect, hon. Members and the Minister must understand that there is real concern among those who have promoted and supported the phrase


"quiet enjoyment" that, until the past couple of days, Ministers seemed to be supporting those words, and accepting the amendments made in the other place, but now, at this late stage, have reversed that position after lobbying from some Back-Bench Conservative Members and others and a number of organisations. It seems that they are backing away more because of the politics than because of practicalities. No doubt we could argue all night about whether that is true, but that is our perception.
I believe that it should not be too hard to define, if not the term "quiet", at least the term "promotion" and what that means in terms of existing activities, and so on, both for the guidance issued by Ministers and the Bill. That is what the Labour amendment has sought to do.
Any rural Member understands the problems that can arise from the actions of those who have been described as the zealots. I understand that. One of the most appalling cases that I have seen in recent years was that of Corky the cockerel, which, extraordinarily, the courts decided against. Surely anybody in the countryside should expect those sort of noises in the early morning. In fact, these days one is more likely to suffer from the noise of large tractors. Nevertheless, that is an example of how matters can be pursued in the courts, and I understand that concern.
9 pm
In practice, it is unlikely that there would be many such vexatious cases, and I do not believe that the courts would be sympathetic to that. In any case, Ministers hold matters in their own hands. Through definitions in the Bill and in guidance, they can give courts a clear position on that.
There is a certain irony in the debate. Only yesterday, we were debating the cost-benefit clauses. The Opposition were arguing that that issue was not susceptible to proper definition, but Ministers were arguing that they believed that, in practice, such matters would not be taken to the courts and that, in any case, they could clarify the position in guidance. I disagreed with them last night, but I believe that this issue is susceptible of the sort of guidance and definition for which Ministers argued in yesterday's debate.
The nub of this issue and the reason it raises such concern and attention is that it deals with the future direction of national parks and the choices that have to be made. Ultimately, real decisions are made about the sort of activities that should go on in national parks. Those decisions often involve making a judgment about jobs and economic development for those within the community as well as the nature of the traditional environment and practices within a national park. They also involve making a judgment about destruction of the environment, including noise pollution and the need to respect and respond to the traditions of the community and new developments.
This debate is about showing the broad direction in which we want development to go. From the start, the national parks have been built around the peaceful enjoyment of the traditional qualities of the countryside and respect for the environment. I believe that the words "quiet enjoyment" are about that vision of the future for the national parks. Without arguing that Ministers are oblivious to that, I wish to tell them simply that I believe that they are wrong on this occasion. They failed to argue

the case properly, and they should stick with their previous support for the amendment passed in the other place.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: When moving the amendment, my right hon. Friend the Minister drew attention to the fact that public perceptions of this part of the Bill have changed during the time that it has been under discussion. When the phrase "quiet enjoyment" was introduced into the Bill in the other place, I received a good many representations from constituents. I should add that all my constituents and I are townies, and that therefore we have a special interest in the qualities of the national parks because that is where we go for recreation and enjoyment. At first, the representations were all in favour of the new words because they have a simple charm about them. The trouble is, it is because they are so simple that I believe that they are misleading.
The word "quiet" is an easy word, but it can mean different things to almost every individual. If somebody hears a noise and shouts, "Be quiet," he means not that one should carry on with quiet enjoyment of one's activity but that one should stop and be silent.
The national parks are quite noisy places. All sorts of activities are taking place. People live there and some make their living there; there are roads passing through them on which there is heavy traffic; aircraft fly overhead and, although we may not necessarily approve of it, military activities take place.
All those things are happening there, so the parks are noisy places. When we get away from the noise into areas where there is less sound, the sounds made by individuals carry long distances. For example, whistling to a dog can be intrusive in a quiet area. I am not sure whether it is possible to have the quiet morris dancing that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned. It is clear that whether an activity is irritating simply because it is noisy depends on the part of the national park in which it takes place.
The amendment would not simply take out the word "quiet" before the word "enjoyment". This is not a clash between enjoyment and quiet enjoyment: those who want quiet enjoyment are not arguing against those who want noisy enjoyment. Instead, amendment No. 193, wisely I believe, puts before any question of enjoyment, whether quiet or noisy, the word "understanding". That is the priority.
People who go into the national parks, for whatever purpose, should understand what the parks are there for. They should understand the activities that take place there before they start the enjoyment.

Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: Let me finish this point first.
One obvious example comes to mind. Parties of schoolchildren go into the national parks, and they may do so to watch noisy farming activities or to watch birds; but when they have finished and go to the picnic area, if they are anything like all the schoolchildren I have ever known, they make a noise.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the argument is about the definition of understanding. What is his definition of the word "understanding" in that context?

Mr. Griffiths: The word "understanding" is simpler to define than the word "quiet". The word "understanding"


represents a recognition of the needs of the people who go into a park and of the activities that take place there. The activities there must be understood, and so must the needs of the visitors. Those are quite straightforward requirements, and that is what the Government seek to provide—an opportunity for people outside to understand what goes on, and an opportunity for people within the parks to help to provide understanding and to receive understanding. They need that. They need their livestock to he protected.

Mr. Morley: The other way round, surely.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he might learn.
It is essential that understanding precedes enjoyment. Enjoyment will involve varying noise levels. What is required is sensible management of the parks, which already exists, with powers to control activities that take place within the boundaries of the parks.
To start with, I was most impressed by my constituents' representations in favour of "quiet enjoyment", but then I started to receive representations from those who use the parks regularly, who pointed out that they take part in all kinds of activities. That includes not only motor sport but model aircraft flying—a nuisance unless it is properly controlled, but if it is properly organised it is an activity that interests young and old, and obviously people can participate in that activity in a national park.
Tonight, we shall not simply take the word "quiet" away from the word "enjoyment" but put in the "understanding" that has to precede enjoyment. That will allow people to enjoy a park and not to abuse it, because they understand the requirements of the area.

Mr. Ainger: As we come towards the end of our consideration of this very large Bill, it is rather unfortunate that the standard of debate has plunged abysmally in the past half hour. What we have heard from Conservative Members has been a load of drivel. What they have been saying is basically spurious scaremongering.
At one stage, the Government were willing to introduce an amendment that put back in the words "quiet enjoyment", yet they now seek to remove them. Which side are they on? Do they support the original intention to include the words "quiet enjoyment" or do they now support their removal?
A letter that I received from the national park officer of Pembrokeshire Coast national park, dated 23 June, says:
I have just learnt of the latest Government amendment, tabled, I gather a minute before midnight, to remove the words 'quiet enjoyment' from the second National Park purpose and revert to the original wording. To say this is a bombshell at this late stage following all the Government assurances and discussions is an understatement. Like a number of recent changes of direction, I am not sufficiently close to Westminster to know where this has come from, but it does represent a major reversal and a breach of assurances we have previously been given.
The writer is referring specifically to the assurances given to the national parks.

Mr. Atkins: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Ainger: The Minister intervenes from a sedentary position. I point out to him that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has already referred to the fact that the Secretary of State gave

assurances to the national parks conference on this very issue. It is no wonder that the national park officer from Pembrokeshire writes in those terms.
The letter continues:
As legislation on National Park matters is by the very nature of their priority infrequent, we are anxious that the Environment Bill should not create problems, but should rather learn from past experiences and resolve them. The recent debates over what type of enjoyment we should positively promote (and this in no way prevents…other forms of enjoyment taking place, or necessarily infers that we have to stop noisy activities) was I thought accepted on all sides.
Those are the words of a Pembrokeshire Coast national park officer and they reflect the grave disappointment that the professionals working in the national parks, who have been promoting enjoyment and understanding for many years, feel as a result of the Government's treatment of them. The Government have promised one thing one month, have changed it the next and then changed it again.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the issue is not quiet enjoyment but the promotion element. Conservative Members seem to believe that there will be a noise Gestapo tramping the moors, cliffs, paths and byways of our national parks, carrying sound meters and shutting people down. That is utter nonsense and Conservative Members know that.
My national park has within it the Castlemartin tank range which regularly blasts away throughout the summer, spring and autumn. It is not the British Army but the German army that is firing there. That does not cause a problem other than to the odd person who, understandably, complains. We have quarries within Pembrokeshire Coast national park which, again, blast away as and when. Nobody proposes that we should shut down the quarries.
I was interested in the comments by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) about what had happened on Lake Windermere. Within Pembrokeshire Coast national park, we have the Cleddau waterway; both banks of it are national park. We had problems there and the national park, with the port authority, set up, after a great deal of consultation with boat owners and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a series of byelaws which were accepted. That took a year or so of consultation, but it worked. In certain areas of that waterway, which is much used for water sports, jet bikes and water-skiing are banned. In other areas, there is a 5 mph limit.
It is possible to have quiet enjoyment yet still have what some would term noisy activities. It just takes sensible consultation. One often has to be patient but, in the end, everybody comes round and knows what is going on—as long as it is properly policed, as the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said. It can be done. There is no threat to the tourism industry if proper byelaws are properly arrived at through proper consultation and are properly policed.
Amendment No. 267 is not new. The wording is basically copied from a previous amendment in another place. Bearing in mind that several Conservative Members have referred to counsel's opinion in relation to "quiet enjoyment", I would like the Minister to tell us whether those words have been subjected to counsel's opinion.

Mr. Atkins: Of course they have.

Mr. Ainger: I would still be interested to hear what counsel's opinion was on the matter, because the amendment, rather than trying to define "quiet enjoyment", sets limits and should assuage the fears of Conservative Members about a noise Gestapo tramping around shutting down farms, quarries and the tourism industry in the national parks. If the Government accept amendment No. 267, they will restore their relationship with the professionals who do such a wonderful job in our national parks promoting enjoyment and understanding.

Mr. Atkins: I had intended when I started my remarks this evening to say that, until now, we have had rather a good debate on a vexed subject which, by demonstrating the controversy across the Floor of the House, illustrates the concern about the words involved. I am tempted to say that we have made a lot of noise about "quiet enjoyment".
I want to clarify one or two points. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and several other Opposition Members—not least the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger)—suggested that we had accepted the principle of "quiet enjoyment", period. That was not the case. I said in Committee that we would like to be able to accept the principle of quiet enjoyment if it could be defined acceptably. The problem all along has been that we have not been able to define it acceptably.
The chief difference between the Government and the Opposition is that my right hon. and hon. Friends represent the people who live and work in national parks—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Pembrokeshire?"] Let me finish. Hon. Members should not jump down a Minister's throat before he has had a chance to finish his remarks.

Mr. McLoughlin: They are excited.

Mr. Atkins: They are indeed excited. My point is that, representing the people who live and work in the English national park constituencies, my right hon. and hon. Friends speak with great authority.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who, I am very sorry to say, is retiring at the next election, has represented Westmorland and the Lake district with considerable acumen and skill over many years, and speaks wearing the two hats to which I referred earlier. He has knowledge of the park through agriculture and land management and also through his interest in matters relating to motor sport. In a telling contribution to the debate, he was able to explain the problems as he sees them and as he has experienced them through his constituents. That is important.
Several others of my hon. Friends made similar points; my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) also made that point when speaking about those who live and work in the park. That is crucial.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he not understand that a national park is a national park because it is beautiful and because visitors want to go there? It is for them that we tabled the amendment. The visitors who go to the park have an extremely important place to enjoy and in which to play.

Mr. Atkins: Well, there it is—it has leaked out. The Labour party is interested only in those who visit and

"recreate" in the national parks. The difference between Labour and us is that we are concerned about the jobs and livelihoods of people who live and work in the parks as well as about their recreational concerns and activities. Much has been made of amendment No. 267 which, as Opposition Members were right to say, was first tabled in another place. It had to be withdrawn because there was no consensus across the party divide or among those seeking to define "quiet" on what the amendment meant.
The point that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been trying to make is that we believed that the proposal originally predicated by adding the word "quiet" attracted notionally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) said, but that, when it came to it, the people who live and work in and understand the parks said that they did not think the definition was right. They asked whether we could redefine the concept. We tried, and one of the reasons that we tabled Government amendment No. 193 so late was that we were trying, right up until the very last minute, to find a definition of "quiet" that would prove acceptable.
I should have preferred not to have such a long debate on a matter that was relatively uncontroversial in Committee and on which there was a degree of consensus. We tried hard to find a new definition but could not do so, and I was determined not to ignore the views of organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club and the National Farmers Union or of the people who live and work in the parks and the country landowners.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned Earl Peel, who has done signal work. Anyone who knows anything about the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds will know how he protected Swaledale and introduced some birds back into the area. He has made a great contribution, but he was one of their lordships who expressed great concern about the definition of "quiet" because of what it would have done to his conservancy.

Mr. Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his view is shared by the Rural Development Commission and the Central Council of Physical Recreation?

Mr. Atkins: Indeed, I cannot forbear to take note of the Central Council of Physical Recreation in view of my former incarnation. Both organisations expressed sensible views.

Mr. Morley: I am sure that the Minister will accept that many people who live and work in national parks support this form of wording, but will he get to the crux of the matter and confirm, for the benefit of the House, that the wording of the Bill gives national park authorities no new powers or rights and that the existing laws will remain? Despite all the talk about legal opinion and going to lawyers, there is no difference between what the wording of the Bill allows and what people may or may not do now.

Mr. Atkins: In essence, the hon. Gentleman is right, but we are concerned about the fact that there are potentially some people or organisations that would choose to go to law because they want to prevent those who live and work in the national parks doing certain things. I am sorry, but I am not prepared to accept that, and nor are my right hon. and hon. Friends. I emphasise again that there was originally consensus about what was attempted, but the concept was not capable of precise


definition in a way that would have proved acceptable to some of the organisations that my colleagues and I mentioned.
We have had an interesting debate, but I do not think that we can logically proceed much further.

Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister accept that the wording of amendment No. 267 would prevent the zealots, or whatever one calls them, from asking the park authorities to prosecute individuals?

Mr. Atkins: There are some frightfully clever and very important people in another place, across the political divide, who are experts in constitutional law and who understand about land owning and its management, as well as living in and understanding the national parks. Their view was that this amendment, which the Opposition have taken over, did not adequately define what "quiet" meant.
To return to my final point, the word "quiet" is not capable of a definition that is acceptable to people who live and work in the park and to some of the organisations that represent them. That is why, even at the last minute, I tabled this amendment, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support me.

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The House divided Ayes 266, Noes 221.

Division No. 183]
[9.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Cash, William


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coe, Sebastian


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Congdon, David


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bates, Michael
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Sir Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Elletson, Harold


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butcher, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David


Butterfill, John
Faber, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Fishburn, Dudley


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forman, Nigel





Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Madel, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Major, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mans, Keith


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gardiner, Sir George
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Monro, Sir Hector


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Norris, Steve


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Page, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Pickles, Eric


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hendry, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Powell, William (Corby)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spink, Dr Robert


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spring, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sproat, Iain


Legg, Barry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lidington, David
Stephen, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Streeter, Gary


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Luff, Peter
Sweeney, Walter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)






Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Thomason, Roy
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Thumham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Simon Burns.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dobson, Frank


Ainger, Nick
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Alton, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Etherington, Bill


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beggs, Roy
Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew F
Fraser, John


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galbraith, Sam


Berry, Roger
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Boateng, Paul
Garrett, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Byers, Stephen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Grocott, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gunnell, John


Chidgey, David
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Church, Judith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Margaret


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coffey, Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hutton, John


Denham, John
Illsley, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)





Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Janner, Greville
Primarola, Dawn


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Radice, Giles


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Keen, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S
Reid, Dr John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lewis, Terry
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Loyden, Eddie
Rowlands, Ted


Lynne, Ms Liz
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


McMaster, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWilliam, John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Mahon, Alice
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Milburn, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Touhig, Don


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mudie, George
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, Bill
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Parry, Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Pearson, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 64

GENERAL PURPOSES AND POWERS

Amendment made: No. 194, in page 87, line 31, leave out
'quiet enjoyment, and understanding of the special qualities,'
and insert
'understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities'.— [Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 68

PLANNING AUTHORITY FUNCTIONS UNDER THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981

Amendment made: No. 195, in page 94, line 8, leave out
'quiet enjoyment, and understanding of the special qualities,'
and insert
'understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 74

POWERS TO MAKE ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 96, line 36, at end insert—
'() specifies a time for the purposes of section 4A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 79

NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STRATEGY

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 100, line 18, at end insert—
'(d) measures of a temporary nature which are to be taken by local authorities and other persons in the event that air quality standards appear likely to be exceeded.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 196, 48 and 54 to 57, 197 to 200, 74, 87 and 90.

Mr. Taylor: Amendment No. 116 seeks to ensure that the national air quality strategy includes temporary measures that can be taken by local authorities if air quality standards seem likely to be breached to help reduce serious air pollution episodes and the duration of those that occur. I hope that the Minister can accept this amendment, not least because it is likely shortly to be a requirement on Governments in any case.
Part IV of the Bill aims, among other things, to implement in advance the provisions of the proposed European directive on ambient air quality assessment and management. One of the objectives of that directive is that the common strategy on air quality should include
the actions and measures required when and where the ambient air quality objectives are exceeded.
The proposed directive goes on to say:
Member states shall make short-term plans for actions to be taken in cases where exceedance is forecast in order to reduce the likelihood of exceedance and to limit its duration.
The amendment aims to ensure that that aspect of what will almost certainly become European law is taken into account in UK legislation at the earliest opportunity. The UK regularly breaches World Health Organisation guidelines. Although European air quality standards have yet to be set, they will almost certainly be set at levels that require action by the UK Government if such breaches are not to occur. In the first week of May, 29 of the Government's 32 ozone monitoring sites monitored such a breach of WHO guidelines, so it is happening all too regularly.
Although the introduction of catalytic converters and measures to reduce traffic growth would cut emissions in the long term, it is highly likely that air quality will

continue to exceed proposed standards over the next few years. We therefore urgently need to find ways to deal with or ameliorate this problem when it occurs.
Given predictions of weather conditions in which air pollution soars, once standards have been set it will be possible to forecast likely breaches over a three or four-day timescale. Working with local authorities, the Government could take steps to ensure that air quality standards are not breached, or that, if pollution exceeds acceptable levels, it does so for as short a period as possible. For example, they could introduce speed limits on motorways, and, if necessary, close off certain streets in city centres using powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
I do not say that roads should be closed whenever it seems likely that standards will be exceeded. I simply argue that the Secretary of State, together with local authorities and the police, should draw up plans for progressive action that could be tailored to suit the severity of the expected problem.
For example, if ozone levels peak at just above the standard and rainy weather is forecast, clearly no action would be needed. But if a long settled period of high pressure with little wind is forecast in summer, lower speed limits and restrictions on town centre parking may be appropriate. If an "inversion" like that which caused the December 1991 smog in London is forecast, tougher measures, such as road closures, may be required.
We must remember that it is not merely a matter of the Government responding to European requirements. The problem leads directly to the death of individuals, as well as unpleasant attacks of breathing difficulties. The Minister for Transport in London recently admitted that traffic reduction may reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations during smog episodes, but said that it would not do so sufficiently to prevent such pollution episodes.
Given the Government's likely obligations, and the fact that the amendment simply allows the Secretary of State to work with local authorities and the police to act when required proportionate to that requirement, I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. After all, it is likely to prevent the need for the Government to come back to the House with such proposals at a later date.

Mr. Atkins: On amendment No. 116, to which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has just spoken, our main focus—in weather such as we are experiencing in London and elsewhere, these matters become of singular importance—must be on achieving the goal of good air quality and reducing the risk of episodes of relatively high pollution. The risk of such episodes, particularly in the weather that we are now experiencing, which I hope we will continue to enjoy, will nevertheless remain. The framework for managing air quality must deal with appropriate action in such episodes.
The amendment attempts to address the problem. I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro will be delighted to know, however, that clause 79(5)(c), which deals with the national air quality strategy, and clause 86(2)(j), concerning regulation-making powers, provide sufficient powers to deal with pollution episodes. I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 116 is unnecessary.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am not altogether familiar with the paragraphs to which the Minister has referred. Can the Minister tell us exactly what are those powers?

Mr. Atkins: Certainly not.

Ms Ruddock: I must come to the aid of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and not allow the Minister to make such a response.
As the Minister rightly says, clause 86 provides for many opportunities for regulations to be made and for local authorities to take all sorts of action to deal with the problem of deteriorating air quality.
If the Government had done what they promised to do in another place, and tabled amendments on air quality and its management in good time, the hon. Member for Truro and all hon. Members would have known what was being proposed, because there would have been an opportunity for them to discover that. The Minister might even have understood his own Bill and his own proposals.
This issue is another example of where promises were made, but many weeks passed in Committee without any action from the Government. The official Opposition tabled an amendment on air quality management because we were afraid that the Government would never produce what they had promised. They finally produced clause 86 just two days before the Bill's final day of consideration in Committee. It is a most important clause, and the House must know tonight what kind of measures local government will be able to take.
The hon. Member for Truro mentioned a number of them—for example, the closure of roads. We want to know whether the Minister thinks that such measures will be appropriate, or whether he considers that other traffic management schemes should be introduced to deal with the problem.
For example, the Secretary of State for Transport has advocated that people should walk instead of using the car, because of the problem of air quality. Does the Minister have some idea about how such advice will be offered to the nation? I wonder how often in the past three weeks ministerial cars have been left behind and Ministers responsible for the environment have walked to the House. The Minister for the Environment and Countryside frowns, while the Under-Secretary—

Sir Paul Beresford: I have walked from my office to the House three times today.

Ms Ruddock: I am pleased to hear that.
The amendment relates to an important part of the Bill. I do not believe that people will have another issue more clearly in their sights than the important matter of air quality when they consider how to improve the environment. It is matter of huge public concern, and the Minister must be invited to get back on his feet to give us more information about that section of the Bill.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady represents an inner-London constituency, and I know that her colleagues, and hon. Friends representing similar constituencies in London and other cities, share her concern about the state of air quality and the public's perception of it. I must also tell her, however, that the Conservative party and this Government have done most, historically, to improve air quality.

[Interruption.] The hon. Lady protests, but I need only remind her of the Clean Air Act 1956, which did much to get rid of smog and other problems associated with it.

Ms Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Atkins: Let me finish the argument. The hon. Lady has had her say; I am entitled to mine in response.
Consequently, we do not take kindly to Opposition Members suggesting to us that we are not doing what is necessary on air quality.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Atkins: In a minute. A collection of hon. Members wish me to sit down, and I shall do so in due course.
However, the argument that the hon. Lady makes, about which we agree, is the urgency of tackling the public anxiety, whether by proclamation from the Dispatch Box or by speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or—more important in the context of the Bill—by way of the regulations that we have announced.

Mr. Taylor: Notwithstanding the actions that the Government may or may not have taken in the past, that is a serious issue, and, as the Minister knows, the previous smog episodes not only caused much distress but took lives. I believe that the Minister—I hope that he has now had a chance to look at his notes—needs to explain more fully why the amendment, the aims of which he broadly supported, is unnecessary.
I cannot see any proposals at the moment to allow a Secretary of State or local authorities or the police to take action to prevent or ameliorate such episodes. Other countries have moved in that direction; we may need to. It appears to me appropriate to allow that to happen when required proportionately.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman provokes me to refer to the book, and I shall read him what it was that, in order not to delay the House, I was seeking to avoid having to say.
Under the provisions of Part IV, local authorities will have a duty to act, dependent on the state of air quality. We wish to make clear the circumstances in which they should act. Specifically, we wish to ensure that designation of air quality management areas and production of action plans can be prompted if it is evident that air quality standards and objectives are, first, not likely to be achieved or, secondly, likely not to be achieved within the relevant period.
Amendment No. 48, tabled in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is intended to ensure that both circumstances will apply to instigate the appropriate actions. That is why, without going into all the technical detail of clause 79(5)(c) and clause 86(2)(j), the amendments in my name cover the matters that the hon. Gentleman is worried about.

Mr. Taylor: They may do so, provided that the type of actions that I suggested would be allowed in that—not long-term planning or designation of areas, but immediate action, for example, to slow traffic on motorways or impose parking restrictions in town centres or whatever might be appropriate. If that is the case, I would certainly seek to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Atkins: My memory is slightly rusty, from my days as Roads Minister, about exactly what the powers of


the Department of Transport are, and those are matters to which I would have to refer, but as far as I understand it—I would not want to be held absolutely to this—powers do exist at the moment to do something along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests, to a greater or lesser degree. If he wishes me to spell those powers out, I shall encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to write to him to do just that. I hope that that assurance will help him to withdraw the amendment.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Minister mentioned the element of weather exacerbating the breathability of air, and he mentioned today's weather. It would be highly unlikely, with as brisk a breeze as we have experienced today, that pollution levels would build up in the air here in the centre of London in the way that they have in the past.
If the Minister might be provoked to refer to the book again, could he give us more detail of what is in those two mysterious clauses?
The Government have a lamentable record in issuing warnings of, for example, excessive ozone in the air of London, and there is little or no point in having the type of regulations to which the Minister has fleetingly referred if local authorities, for example, are not to be helped, either by laws or by financial considerations, to implement the necessary requirements—so that, for example, my constituents will be able to breathe the air without provoking, as is increasingly the case in certain parts of my constituency, a serious asthma attack in themselves or their small children.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear what resources will be made available in order to implement the measures in this group of amendments. It was quite clear yesterday that the Minister was not interested in the fact that the Coal Authority did not believe that it had the resources to deal with abandoned mines, and that the National Rivers Authority did not believe that it could fund all its activities from its normal budget.
I welcome the clauses about air quality, and I believe that they may be some of the most important and valuable elements in the Bill. Local authorities must now do four things with regard to air pollution: assess the air quality in their area; prepare a report of that assessment within 12 months; prepare an action plan; and include a statement in that plan about how they will implement the proposals. Local authorities have to perform those tasks in co-operation with another public authority, the Vehicle Licensing Authority, whose resources are also under pressure.
There was consensus in Committee that the problems of smog and air pollution, which are of increasing concern to people up and down the country, but particularly those in urban areas, will not be solved by the activities of public authorities; they must be solved by the industries involved. The Minister failed to say in Committee how public and the private industry resources would be raised in order to deal with the problem of air pollution which concerns our constituents and which is the subject of inquiries by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the Select Committee on the Environment. The Government must respond to that increasing concern.
Before we move from that part of the Bill, I hope that the Government will give a much clearer indication of how they intend to meet the excellent requirements in the legislation.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I represent a constituency that encompasses one of the most congested and polluted cities in Europe, according to the air pollution monitoring carried out by Cambridge city council. It has been revealed that Parker street in the centre of Cambridge has higher levels of pollution than almost any other place where monitoring has taken place. That may be because there is very little pollution monitoring at the moment, and therefore Cambridge is not one of the most polluted cities but simply one of the most heavily monitored.
That monitoring is taking place in response to local residents' concern about the very high levels of asthma and bronchial diseases in the city. That is perhaps surprising in a city where 23 per cent. of the population cycle to work—an unusually high percentage, which is well above the national average. I think that that shows that it is not sufficient to combat air pollution simply by promoting cycling or walking; there must also be action to reduce traffic in other ways.
I am fortunate to live close to the railway station in Cambridge—in fact, I live halfway between the railway station and the bus station. My household has managed without a car completely for the past eight years. We use our feet, bicycles, trains and buses. However, that option is not open to many of my constituents. It is not an option for many of those who live in the rural areas of Cambridgeshire and who find it extremely difficult to travel to work or to the city of Cambridge without using their cars.
I am concerned about short-term measures. I do not think that they are the answer.
The long-term answer must be a regulated bus system and other good public transport, strategies for safe walking and cycling, and promotion of the benefits of cycling and walking to individual health and in reducing pollution. If councils are forced to stop traffic entering a city on days when pollution is high, that will cause widespread chaos. That may benefit many asthma sufferers, but it is not a long-term solution.
It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Environment Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: The promotion of cycling and walking together with proper public transport provision is a sensible long-term solution, and would preclude short-term solutions.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister did not seem to speak to amendment No. 196. He does not appear to know, but he is looking to see if there is something in his book.
In Committee, it appeared from the Minister's remarks that the regulation-making powers in clause 86 could not be used to give local authorities a stopping power. The tabling of Government amendment No. 196 appears to


contradict that assertion. It seems to have been tabled to make it clear that local authorities do not have a stopping power. The Minister is nodding, so perhaps we may have that on the record.
For reasons of identification and the security of drivers, we would prefer that any person having the right to stop a vehicle for inspection, to ascertain whether it was polluting, should be recognisable. A uniformed police officer is an obvious example. In Committee, we expressed concern, given that police resources are so stretched, that such a power would only be operable by a uniformed constable in minimal ways. The Minister nods, or perhaps he is nodding off. If the right hon. Gentleman is agreeing, it is a matter for concern that police resources are so limited that little progress can be made.
If the amendment is accepted, would the Bill preclude traffic wardens and special constables having the power to stop a vehicle? That is a key concern to those of us who want much greater enforcement of vehicle emission regulations. It would be helpful if another category of uniformed or vetted people were able to stop vehicles.
Although we sympathise with amendment No. 116, clearly there is a need for temporary measures. We would like to hear more about what such measures might be. Does the Minister agree that temporary measures are, in such circumstances, an admission of failure? They are needed only because air quality has become so bad. The Bill does not sufficiently establish a comprehensive and sustainable strategy to reduce emissions and private car use, while increasing public transport use and improving air quality.

Mr. Atkins: At this late hour, we have inevitably had a fairly brief debate on the important matter of public perception, on which there is considerable agreement. I said in Committee that resources, whether for local authorities or the police, were a matter for the respective Ministers. I undertook in Committee, and I undertake again, to ensure that—for example, in relation to local authorities—my hon. Friend with responsibility for local government will consider that matter. Negotiations are already under way on a variety of matters relating to the local government settlement, and this will form a part of that.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) will recall that I have said on occasion that environmental health officers received our strategy on air quality very well. That is heartening in many respects. Police resources are clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I shall undertake to draw the hon. Lady's comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The hon. Lady spoke about the power to stop vehicles. I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to be an expert on the legal powers of the police, but a constable can certainly stop vehicles, and I imagine that a special constable would have the same power. I am not sure about traffic wardens, and I shall try to find out precisely. [Interruption.] I shall find out in due course, and in my own way. The hon. Lady made a perfectly fair point.

Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Atkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to finish the point that I am on. [Interruption.] I do

not need that sort of nonsense. The hon. Member for Deptford asked a perfectly legitimate question that needs examination.
Generally, as the hon. Lady rightly acknowledged, there is concern among some groups of people about the power to stop vehicles being spread too wide, for example, to local health environment officers, whom I do not in any sense decry. Plainly, a non-uniformed person stopping elderly single ladies in cars late at night on Hampstead heath or in places like that would cause concern, and we need to address that.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister take the trouble to read his piece of paper, and tell the House what it says? It is all right for the Minister to write to us afterwards, but there is a big advantage in telling us at the Dispatch Box, because that is the way in which the general public, who are concerned about this matter, can tell what happens. If he needs a pair of glasses, I will lend him a pair.

Mr. Atkins: We want to make progress, and I do not want to delay the House unduly. However, as the hon. Gentleman presses me, I shall read to him what I have been told. Traffic wardens can, under other legislation and in strictly limited circumstances, and usually in support of the police, help police with certain of their functions. There you have it.

Ms Ruddock: We know that already, and it does not answer my question. It was whether clause 86, as amended by amendment No. 196, if it were passed, would make it possible for uniformed traffic wardens to stop cars to see whether they had polluting exhausts.

Mr. Atkins: We have had a spot of fun, and I have read out what I was given, but the answer is that I simply do not know, and I make no bones about it. The hon. Lady asks a perfectly sensible question that requires a sensible answer. I shall ascertain exactly, precisely and unequivocally the powers of a traffic warden in this respect, and let her know. If she would like to copy it for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) so that he is satisfied as well, then we could all be satisfied.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: As ever, the Minister has been quite amusing in his responses, mostly deliberately, but I am not sure that he has entirely satisfied the concerns that have been expressed. Fundamentally, the Minister has tried to argue that the powers are all there, although I noticed that, in his earlier response to me, he crossed rather neatly from referring to the obligation that is placed on local authorities to powers resting with the Secretary of State and the Department in taking action. That goes to the heart of the confusion that I am concerned about.
Nevertheless, the Minister has told us that he believes that the powers exist, and he has promised to write, or to get his colleagues to write, to confirm that. I hope that, given time, he will be able to come up with a better answer, and that it will not take too long to do so, so that the Bill will not be finally finished at all ends of this place before we get an answer. I do not want, however, to hold up the House any more than this surprisingly lengthy but important debate has already done, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 83

DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO DESIGNATED AREAS

Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 102, line 1, leave out from 'where' to 'about' in line 4 and insert
'an action plan or a revision of an action plan is being prepared for an area for which there is a county council and a district council; and if in a case where this subsection applies the county council and the district council disagree'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 102, line 8, leave out from 'confirm' to 'reject' in line 11 and insert
'an action plan for the area, either as proposed by the county council or as proposed by the district council, or with such modifications as he may reasonably consider appropriate, or he may'.
No. 17, in clause 85, page 103, line 43, leave out clause 85.
No. 18, in clause 90, page 109, leave out lines 16 to 17 and insert—
'(b) in respect of any area for which there is a county council and a district council, the county council and the district council acting jointly.'.
No. 21, in schedule 11, page 201, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (e).

Mr. Tipping: This is a focused group of amendments and I do not intend to detain the House. Their purpose is to ensure that there is a real partnership between counties and district councils in taking action to improve air quality.
Under the Government's proposals, the district councils and the unitary authorities are taking a proactive role in creating an action plan to improve air quality. In contrast, as it stands, the county function is more passive. County participation in the action plan is as a consultee of the district. It has the ability to make recommendations, and the power, if agreement cannot be reached, to refer matters to the Secretaries of State.
Counties have an important role in improving air quality. Let me give just two examples. First, vehicle emissions are viewed increasingly as a major source of pollutants. Of course, county councils are highway authorities. They implement and introduce traffic management schemes and are very involved with public transport, so they are at the cornerstone of building an air quality plan. Their efforts to reduce vehicle emissions can have a real effect on improving air quality.
Secondly, county councils have strategic functions. It would be peculiar if air quality were confined to district boundaries. Let me give an example from my own constituency. The Nottingham conurbation is surrounded by a number of district councils. There is a strong case that the county should be involved in setting up an umbrella, as it were, so that the air quality of the whole conurbation could be measured and efforts made to improve it. Air quality is not confined just to district council boundaries.
I strongly argue that counties should be equal partners in the production of action plans. I know that county councils, especially the Association of County Councils, want to play a dynamic and strategic role. The Minister

is well aware of some of the tensions in local government, and that is to put it mildly, but I want to stress that county councils believe that they have a strong case.
The problem is that the only recourse for county councils, if they do not agree with the district action plan, is to refer the matter up to the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is a bureaucratic and time-consuming initiative. A far better way of setting up a good action plan is to include in the Bill, as the amendments suggest, a way of making county councils partners alongside district councils.
I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments carefully and that he is minded to accept them. If he is not, I know that guidance will be issued on how air quality plans can be drawn together.
I hope that the Minister will consult county councils, to ensure that they feel that they are equal partners and I hope that he will ensure that they will be involved in the action plans. It is important that we make progress. This is an important issue and I hope that the important functions of county councils will be taken into consideration.

Sir Paul Beresford: I am old enough to remember the tensions between what is now a unitary authority and the previous Greater London council, so I appreciate the concerns. However, we are aware of the excellent work carried out by many county councils. Kent is an example of a county that has done a great deal in the way of air quality management.
The provisions in clause 85 will ensure that that role is preserved and strengthened. We expect that county councils will be fully involved in all aspects of local air quality management. We have already said that we shall consult the local authorities on the implementation of our air quality strategy. If there is any need to clarify that further, we shall be able to do so within the context of future direction and guidance.
With great respect, I am sure that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) will agree that the amendments serve only to confuse the important roles of both tiers of local authorities. We do not feel that it is enough to say that the local authorities should act jointly and then leave it to them to sort matters out. The Government amendments have sought to give a clearer legal framework to the important contribution that both district and county councils will make.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It acknowledges the strategic role of county councils and the fact that they have an important role to play. I note that guidance is to be issued and I hope that the voice of the county councils is heard during discussions on that guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86

REGULATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF PART IV

Amendment made: No. 196, in page 107, line 46, at end insert—
'(5A) Nothing in regulations under this Part shall authorise any person other than a constable in uniform to stop a vehicle on any road.'.[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 90

INTERPRETATION OF PART IV

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 109, line 38, at end insert—
'(2) Any reference in this Part to it appearing that any air quality standards or objectives are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved includes a reference to it appearing that those standards or objectives are likely within that period not to be achieved.".—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 92

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY: GENERAL

Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 115, line 44, after 'unless', insert—

'(a) a document containing proposals for the regulations in the form of a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament for a period of sixty days during which the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made by any Committee of either House; and
(b) after those sixty days,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 49 to 53.

Mr. O'Brien: This matter is relevant to the business before the House, because in Committee we were advised that the Department of the Environment had issued a consultation document about the responsibility of waste packaging, to which the packaging industry should respond. The Department made six suggestions in that document about how the industry could consider the control of waste and the way in which packaging could be recycled so that, collectively, we could reduce the amount of waste from food packaging and other consumer durables.
This is the last opportunity for the House to discuss the Bill's implications. Also, observations on the Government's consultation document are not due to be returned until the middle of August. Given both those facts, the industry's views could be submitted to the Secretary of State and he could make a decision about what he considers to be best for the industry without hon. Members, particularly those who served on the Committee, being able to consider the proposals. Yet under the legislation we are asked to consider the proposals. Against that background I, with the support of my colleagues, tabled the amendment.
When the Secretary of State receives the responses from the industry to the consultation document that he has issued—no one objects or criticises him for issuing it—and wants to introduce a scheme for recycling or for reducing waste, it is only right and proper that he should come to the House and advise and guide us on what he is proposing. We should have the opportunity to say yea or nay to his proposals.
My concern is heightened because the people in the business say that the Secretary of State's six proposals do not conform with what the industry wants to do to minimise waste. They have their own proposals, so we should have the opportunity to consider them. That is another reason why the Minister should accept my amendment, which would be a way of proving that we want to have the best arrangements for minimising waste and ensuring that the polluter pays.
However, where there is a collective group, perhaps it would be better that the payment by the polluter should be made on a collective basis. Is the Minister aware of the views of the Food and Drink Federation? I am sure that he has been made aware of its proposal, which refers to shared producer responsibility for packaging waste. The federation says that collectively—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a wide debate on packaging, the Food and Drink Federation, Inkpen and all the other contributors to that discussion. We are debating the amendment, which is fairly clear and specific, and the hon. Gentleman should stick to that. He can make the other points on Third Reading if he wishes.

Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the document containing the proposals in the amendment. It was produced by Valpak, which represents the collective response of the industry. I was referring to that document and to the response of the Food and Drink Federation. I was saying that the document entitled "Shared Producer Responsibility For Packaging Waste" is the document in the amendment. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the fact that the Valpak scheme is the alternative to the six proposals of the Department of the Environment.
The document to which I refer in the amendment is that suggested by the Food and Drink Federation and by the Pro Carton association. Those are the people who recommend the document that the amendment suggests.
I can accept Government amendments Nos. 49 to 53. We are talking about registration and I do not object to the Government's proposals for the registration of persons—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We need clarification here. The amendment refers to "a document". If a document is listed in an amendment, it must be a Government document unless specified otherwise. That is not specified in the amendment. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the document relates to something that the industry has produced, in which case the amendment is completely out of order? Clarification is important.

Mr. O'Brien: For clarification, I suggest again that the six proposals—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify the position. The amendment refers to "a document". Is that some form of official Government document or is it a private sector document?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Which?

Mr. O'Brien: It is a Government document, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which will be produced by the Secretary of State. I suggest that the Secretary of State should bring the document to the House for us to consider after the period that he has set for the industry to consider his proposals in the consultation document. I suggest that the Secretary of State may bring forward a document that is totally different from the six proposals in his consultation document.

Mr. Atkins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. He is, however, getting a little bit concerned about something about which he does not need to be concerned. It would certainly be my intention and that of the Secretary of State to ensure that Members of


Parliament were consulted on the matter. I agree with the spirit of the amendment, but it would restrict our flexibility in practice. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the assurance, by way of a brief intervention, that what he is asking for is something that we intend to do anyway. In the circumstances, he does not have cause for concern and he may feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: That is the clarification that I sought. I would accept Government amendments Nos. 49 to 53. In view of the Minister's assurances that no decision will be taken by the Department or the Secretary of State without the House being informed of that decision and that the draft will be put before the House, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. The Minister agrees with the spirit of what I have suggested and I am prepared to accept his assurances.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not yet proposed the Question that the amendment be made. Nevertheless, this has been a worthwhile debate. I call Mr. Clifton-Brown, although there is an administrative difficulty because the Question has not been proposed.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to speak to Government amendments Nos. 49 and 53?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will therefore speak to those amendments. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to Government amendments Nos. 49 and 53 as they are plagiarised from my amendments in Committee, which were almost identical.
At that stage, I was speaking on behalf of Valpak, which is the industry's group representing no fewer than 50 companies. It was set up by the Secretary of State to look at the implementation of the EC directive on packaging waste and to see how the targets could be met. The group encouraged me to table various amendments in Committee, not least of which was an amendment to encourage people who were not part of registered exemption schemes to be registered nevertheless. It was quite an achievement, in that all sections of industry were united under the organisation and knew how they wished the Government to proceed.
I suspect that, for the sake of convenience, the Government wish to proceed to implementation of the directive by approaching one section of the packaging chain—the packer fillers—rather than the whole packaging chain. I emphasise that all sections of the chain are in agreement. In case my right hon. Friend the Minister should say that the industry is not united, I must point out that, in the retail sector, no less august companies than Marks and Spencer and Boots, which had previously not been on board, are now on board.
While I welcome the amendments, I ask the Government to listen in future to what industry wants. The Bill imposes significant obligations on industry, and I ask the Government to consult on how they will implement clause 93.

Mr. Atkins: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's support, brief as it was. I assure him that we shall of course pay particular attention to what industry has to

say. It is, after all, the major player, and no Government would be foolish enough to make decisions without having a pretty clear idea of what industry thought. My hon. Friend spoke on the issue in Committee and, I believe, on other occasions. I am grateful to him for taking the trouble to do so and for supporting the amendments.

Clause 93

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 116, line 17, at end insert—
'(dd) the registration of persons who are subject to a producer responsibility obligation and who are not members of registered exemption schemes, the imposition of requirements in connection with such registration, the variation of such requirements, the making of applications for such registration, the period for which any such registration is to remain in force and the cancellation of any such registration;'.
No. 50, in page 116, line 28, after 'any' insert 'such'.
No. 51, in page 116, line 33, leave out
'for registration received by it;'
and insert
'received by it for registration of exemption schemes;'.
No. 52, in page 117, line 2, at end insert—
'(v) on the making of an application for, or for the renewal of, registration of a person required to register under the regulations;
(vi) in respect of the renewal of the registration of that person;'.
No 53, in page 117, line 27, at end insert
'or persons required to register under the regulations;'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 96

HEDGEROWS

Amendment proposed: No. 110, in page 120, line 29, at end insert—

'(2A) For the purpose of facilitating the protection of important hedgerows, regulations under subsection (1) above may also make provision in relation to other hedgerows in England or Wales.
(2B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) to (2A) above, regulations under subsection (1) above may provide for the application (with or without modifications) of, or include provision comparable to, any provision contained in the planning Acts and may, in particular, make provision—

(a) prohibiting, or for prohibiting, the removal of, or the carrying out of prescribed acts in relation to, a hedgerow except in prescribed cases;
(b) for or with respect to appeals against determinations or decisions made, or notices given or served, under or by virtue of the regulations, including provision authorising or requiring any body or person to whom an appeal lies to consult prescribed persons with respect to the appeal in prescribed cases;
(c) for a person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any prescribed provision of the regulations to be guilty of an offence;
(d) for a person guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (c) above which consists of the removal, in contravention of the regulations, of a hedgerow of a description prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph to be liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine;



(e) for a person guilty of any other offence by virtue of paragraph (c) above to be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding such level on the standard scale as may be prescribed.

(2C) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different descriptions of hedgerow, different descriptions of person, different areas or localities or different circumstances.'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—
'(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) above may also make provision in relation to other hedgerows in England and Wales, but only to the extent necessary for the purpose of facilitating the protection of important hedgerows.'
Amendment (b) to the proposed amendment, in line 4, at end insert—
'() Regulations under subsection (1) above shall make provision for or with respect to appeals against determinations or decisions made, or notices given or served, under or by virtue of the regulations, and may include provision authorising or requiring any body or person to whom and appeal lies to consult prescribed persons with respect to the appeal in prescribed cases.'
Amendment (c) to the proposed amendment, leave out lines 11 to 14.
Government amendments Nos. 111 to 115.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to have to detain the House again. I have long been concerned with hedgerows and I should have preferred the issue to have been dealt with not by means of legislation. However, that battle is lost and the Government have introduced provisions in the Bill to deal with hedgerows.
The amendments would ensure that the provisions have as light a touch as possible. I should like the Government to specify clearly in their guidance what are considered important hedgerows. What is meant by important hedgerows is crucial. We do not want to specify every hedgerow; otherwise, landowners, farmers and others would have significant additional obligations placed on them.
In another place, Lord Ullswater said that an appeals mechanism would be introduced so that if someone who was notified about an important hedgerow disagreed with the designation, he could appeal against it. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could reassure me about the appeals mechanism to be included in the guidance.

Mr. Atkins: Amendments (a) to (c) would revise Government amendment No. 110 in two ways. Amendment (a) recasts subsection (2A). It would enable regulations to make provisions in relation to other hedgerows but only to the extent necessary for the purpose of facilitating the protection of important hedgerows. I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend. My amendment does not simply state that regulations may make provision about other hedgerows. If it did, I would understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's sentiments. But my amendment goes further than that; it states in plain terms that the regulations may make such provision for the purpose of facilitating the protection of important hedgerows. I do not think that my hon. Friend's amendment adds anything to that, since the purpose of subsection (2A) is clearly expressed.
Amendments (b) and (c) relate to appeals, to which my hon. Friend referred briefly in his conclusion.

Mr. Morley: I do not want to delay the House by speaking on improvements in the way in which hedgerow legislation is evolving. I want to put it on record that we support the measures that the Minister is taking, but will the measures that he is moving apply to hedgerows in semi-urban and urban areas, which may be important?

Mr. Atkins: It is certainly not my intention to move into urban areas if I can possibly avoid it. There are grave concerns on both sides of the House about the implications of all that. Clearly, some exceptionally important hedgerows might have to be considered. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman may be reassured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to appeals. It was generally agreed in another place that rights of appeal should form an essential part of the scheme's arrangements. That is indeed our intention. We undertook to consider whether some provision on appeals should be included on the face of the Bill. Subsection (2B)(b) of amendment No. 110 does so in widely drawn terms, for the good reason that we cannot, at this stage, prejudge the terms of the scheme that emerges from consultation.
I can understand the purpose behind amendment (b), which states that provision for appeals has to be made
against determinations or decisions made, or notices given or served, under…the regulations".
I am concerned, however, that its effect might be unfortunate. It might place a requirement on the Government to provide rights of appeal against all decisions and determinations. That would include a decision to allow a hedgerow to be removed, which is not what my hon. Friend intends.
We must wait until we are clear about how the arrangements will work in practice before we consider the means by which decision makers should be challenged. I do not think that there is much difference between my hon. Friend and me, and I hope that, in the circumstances, he will not press his amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 111, in page 121, line 9, at end insert—
' "hedgerow" includes any stretch of hedgerow;'.
No. 112, in page 121, line 14, at end insert—
' "the planning Acts" has the same meaning as it has in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by virtue of section 336(1) of that Act;'.
No. 113, in page 121, line 15, leave out second 'prescribed' and insert
'specified, or of a description specified,'.
No. 114, in page 121, line 16, at end insert—
' "remove", in relation to a hedgerow, means uproot or otherwise destroy, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;'.
No. 115, in page 121, line 18, at end insert—
'(6) Any reference in this section to removing, or carrying out an act in relation to, a hedgerow includes a reference to causing or permitting another to remove, or (as the case may be) carry out an act in relation to, a hedgerow.'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 107

POWERS OF ENFORCING AUTHORITIES AND PERSONS AUTHORISED BY THEM

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 134, line 17, at end insert—
'(c) a local authority for the purposes of Part IV of this Act or regulations under that Part;'.
No. 205, in page 134, line 38, leave out 'section 161' and insert 'sections 161 to 161C'.
No. 55, in page 134, line 46, leave out 'such authorities' and insert
'or transferred to, that authority'.
No. 56, in page 134, line 48, leave out second 'Part'.
No. 57, in page 134, line 49, leave out 'or' and insert—
'(aa) by or under regulations made by virtue of Part IV of this Act; or'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 112

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO DELEGATE HIS FUNCTIONS OF DETERMINING, OR TO REFER MATTERS INVOLVED IN, APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 220, in page 137, line 45, after '42B(5)' insert 46B'.
No. 206, in page 138, line 7, after '96' insert '161B'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 115

APPLICATION OF THIS ACT TO THE ISLES OF SCILLY

Amendments made: No. 197, in page 139, line 8, leave out 'section 76' and insert
'sections 76, 79 and 88'.
No. 198, in page 139, line 9, after 'section' insert 'or section 88 above'.
No. 199, in page 139, line 16, after 'functions' insert
'(other than functions under or by virtue of Part III or IV of this Act)'.
No. 200, in page 139, line 20, after 'III' insert 'or IV'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 118

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, TRANSITIONAL AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS, SAVINGS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 142, line 43, leave out 'not mentioned in that Schedule but'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Clause 123

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT, ETC.

Mr. Atkins: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 146, line 24, after '77' insert
',paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 7'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 117, in schedule 7, page 173, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 174 and insert—

'(a) one third local authority members;
(b) one third members appointed by the Secretary of State; and
(c) one third members elected from Parish councils which are entirely or partly within national park boundaries and which for the purpose of this election shall form one voting body.'.

Government amendment No. 62.
No 253, in page 173, line 45, at end insert—
'(c) such number of members to be elected from amongst those persons whose main residence is within the boundaries of the National Park.'.
Government amendment No. 63.
No. 254, in page 174, line 3, leave out from 'to' to end of line 5 and insert
'the number of local authority members specified in the order; and to the number of members to be elected for amongst those persons whose main residence is within the boundaries of the National Park.'.
No. 118, in page 174, line 30, leave out
'have regard to the desirability of appointing'
and insert 'appoint'.
Government amendments Nos. 64 to 68.

Mr. Atkins: I should speak briefly to this amendment. In Committee, we dealt in preliminary terms with the structure of the national parks. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to respond to the Government amendments and I therefore want to put on record some points that may be of help to them.
There has been some interest in identifying the parish nominations to which we referred. We have received about 72 responses to the consultation exercise and the views expressed have been taken into consideration in reaching our decision to proceed with the change in the constitution of the new authorities.
The important point in all this is that concern has been expressed—certainly on Second Reading and on other occasions, I think—about the need to ensure that the national parks and those who live and work in them should be better represented than has been the case heretofore. I made an attempt in Committee to do just that, and I hope that this proposal will be acceptable to the House.
There has been some concern about parish nominations, but I can assure hon. Members that we are content for parishes in each park to decide, through a collective process agreed among themselves, a list of nominations to be put before the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will retain the ultimate discretion—I have assured hon. Members that my right hon. Friend is most unlikely to challenge anything�žand will make the ultimate appointments. This will be made clear when we seek nominations for parish appointments, and in a circular to be issued in due course.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend address amendment No. 118 which would remove the word "desirability" from the Bill?

Mr. Atkins: I shall be more than happy to address the amendment after my hon. Friend has spoken to it.

Mr. Morley: As on the issue of quiet enjoyment, which we have just debated, the Government have decided on this issue to go back on their word and to break the wide consensus on the recommendations of the Edwards committee. But there is less of an excuse for the Government in this case. This is not a case of a Bill being changed following a vote in another place or where the Government put a measure on the face of the Bill. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Edwards committee, but suddenly—again, at very short notice—decided that they were going to change their mind and break the consensus.
The Edwards committee consulted widely and looked at all of the various issues, and yet we now have new amendments rushed through following limited consultation. There has been no consultation at all with the countryside bodies that are involved in national parks. Why have the Government done this? How does the measure improve the representation of local people? Are these proposals wanted in the national parks? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I shall refer to the consultations, and Conservative Members ought to listen to what they say before making their views known.
If the measure is so important, why is it to apply only to national parks in England and not in Wales? Why are parish council appointees by the Secretary of State apparently to be exempt from the provisions of appointment for other nominees by the Secretary of State? On the face of it, they seem to have open—ended appointments, compared with those in other categories. Why is it—contrary again to the original promises—that the Countryside Commission will not be consulted about the nominees who go forward?
The response to the Government's consultation exercise was very interesting. I have had the opportunity to examine the responses, which I asked the Minister to place in the Library. Of those organisations that expressed an opinion, 40 were strongly opposed to the changes being put forward by the Minister tonight. Sixteen of those that responded and that expressed an opinion were in favour. Not surprisingly, all bar two of those were parish councils.

Mr. Atkins: That is unreasonable.

Mr. Morley: It is not unreasonable. If parish councils are asked whether they want representation on the bodies, most of them will be in favour. Before the Minister gets too excited, eight of those 16 that responded in favour made it clear that they were not happy with the process of selection, and that they were strongly opposed to direct appointment by the Secretary of State. Some of them said that they could not see how direct appointment or selection by the Secretary of State was going to improve local accountability in any way.
Some pointed out that large numbers of parish councils—there are more than 100 parish councils in the Peak district—led to organisational problems in terms of selection. There are virtually no parish councils in Northumberland, and I would be interested to know how the Minister will make the amendment work there if there are hardly any parish councils.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I apologise if I misheard the hon. Gentleman, but I understood him to say that there are no parish councils in Northumberland.

Mr. Morley: Hardly any.

Mr. Atkinson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the national park area is covered by parish councils that are delighted by my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Mr. Morley: That is not the response of the national parks. It is clear that in Northumberland only a small proportion of the population in the national park area is covered by parish councils.
The national parks have pointed out that there are organisational problems with the nomination and selection process. Some national parks do not have an adequate number of regional bodies representing parish councils—but where they do exist, not all the parish councils in the area belong to them. In some national parks forums have been established to deal with parish councils. We strongly support that approach if the forums are properly consulted and have a proper input into the decision-making of the national park authorities. It is an effective and sensible way to involve parish councils.
The benefit of such an approach was confirmed in the Edwards report. For the benefit of some hon. Members, I shall remind the House of what the Edwards committee said about parish council representation. It said that it did not support the proposition that there should be parish council appointees on each national park authority. Instead,
to cater for the needs of parish councils and community councils, we argue that the consultation arrangements between national park authorities and the councils should be strengthened.
We have no objection to that as it seems reasonable. It continued:
For example, there should be systematic consultation on planning applications and regular forums to explain the implications of policy developments and to hear the aspirations and problems of park communities. The appointment of community development officers in a number of park authorities is helpful in this respect.
There is no reason why the Minister and the Government should not follow the suggestion of the Edwards committee. It would be a far more effective way of involving parish councils and hearing their views, than plucking out through some mysterious magic circle a privileged number of people to sit on the new authorities.
Another point made by the parish councils was that where there are existing joint arrangements—such as in my constituency, where a number of parish councils cover a particular village school and there is a rotational system of representation on the school governing body—that sort of approach has often proved unsatisfactory to the parish councils. Again, they have expressed concern about the selection of nominees.
There is a genuine question whether the Government's amendments would improve local accountability. I do not think that the evidence is there to show that they would. Indeed, an examination of current national park committees shows that a high proportion of their members are also parish councillors. The proportion ranges from 60 per cent. of the members of the Snowdonia national park committee to 38 per cent. in the Yorkshire Dales. The average is between 25 and 30 per cent. for local government members who are also parish councillors. There is a link there.
Of course, good local authority members regularly attend the parish council meetings in their areas to report back—as should local Members of Parliament. I certainly attend my parish council meetings, give them an annual report and take questions from councillors. There is no reason why there cannot be that sort of accountability linked to the present system.
As two thirds of the members of national park authorities will be local government members, and in view of the guidance in the Bill that regard should be taken of councillors who represent wards within the new park authority areas—which is reasonable as the people


who serve on the new authorities should come from wards in the national parks—local representation is good and will be improved by the Bill's proposals.
It must be spelt out that national parks are just that. With 75 per cent. national funding, it is right that, as laid down in the Bill, one third of the places should be nationally appointed to reflect national concerns. However, those national appointments should be transparent and a register of nominations should be established and available for people to inspect. The amendments would reduce those national places. They would also reduce local government places, namely the local councillors responsible for raising finance for the national parks, which responsibility parish councils do not have. The amendments would reduce national members and give parish councillors some 18 per cent. of the places on a 22-member national park authority.
Why do that? The tensions between parishes and park authorities will not go away as a result of those proposals. From the responses that I have read, it seems that the tensions were primarily linked with planning disputes. I appreciate that some local parish councils feel that only local people should have a role on national park authorities. One parish council even said that not only should it be local people but "native" people, which was going a bit far. I do not know whether it meant that only ancient Britons or Celts should be allowed to sit on the national park authorities.
Most reasonable people would recognise that there must be a balance between all those who live in, use and depend on the national parks and those who use them for recreation. The amendments upset the sensible balance which the Edwards committee brought about. There does not seem to be even an attempt to consider other ways of dealing with the matter, such as co-opting parish councils, if that were felt desirable. Instead, the amendments seek to upset the two-thirds, one-third balance. Professor Edwards, who has given greater consideration to this matter than anyone in the House tonight, said in a recent letter to the Secretary of State that the proposal that we are discussing is
counterproductive both in producing a sensibly balanced pluralism on Park Authorities and, politically, being perceived as moving from bodies with a clear majority of democratically elected representatives towards quangos which are currently viewed with deep suspicion. And for what?
Indeed, for what? Perhaps this is the Government of the parochial party, prepared to put parochial interests before strategic balance. Or are the amendments yet another example of the Government's fatal addiction to quangos, given that nearly half the appointments would be under the patronage of the Secretary of State? I doubt whether any hon. Member believes hand on heart that the Government should appoint nearly half the members of those committees. Those should be local government bodies, but they are being turned into quangos under the patronage of the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be.
The amendments are a travesty of democracy, unanimously rejected by the national park authorities, eight out of 10 of which are controlled by Conservative Members. For once, the Government got this matter right the first time, when they introduced the Bill. We strongly

support the wording currently in the Bill. The amendments are a retrograde step that does nothing for local accountability.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I speak with personal experience of how national parks have been and are run. In my misspent youth, I was an elected member of the Dartmoor national park committee for six years and its vice-chairman for five years, and I was proud of the work that that national park did. The problem then and now is that there is a democratic deficit in the running of national parks. Conservative Members from national park areas will agree with me.
It is extremely important that we are debating this issue, even at this late hour, and I am glad that a thorough debate, which I read, took place in Committee on the subject. I and my hon. Friends have put forward a solution in amendment No. 117, but the solution that we proposed in Committee was even better. I am sad that we did not have the support of all hon. Members from national park areas and other hon. Members who are concerned about the problem of democratic deficit in the running of our national parks. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) moved a simple amendment in Committee, that one third of the members of the new national park authorities should be directly elected by the people of the national parks. Then we could solve all the problems referred to in the House this evening and in Committee, about the use of devious mechanisms by which local representation could be achieved. Direct election is the answer.
I believe that the Minister was sympathetic to that proposal, because his objections about trying to find the right returning officer and the like were laughable. That proposal represented the best solution. It would have provided the right type of representation in all our national parks. Those elected would not be chosen because they happened to be the right parish councillor, at the right time, for whom no one could find another job. They would be elected because they specifically stood before their electorate and said, "I have something to say. I want to do something for our national park area."
Despite the widespread concern expressed about the Government's proposal to "appoint", as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, a proportion of parish councillors, sadly, in Committee Ministers refused to accept the simple proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro. The Government have refused to listen to the many voices of dissent and have now gone back on their original proposal. They intend to extend the proportion of members of the national park authorities who will serve by virtue of quangodom, not of democracy. Accountability will not be enhanced, rather the appointee will still be responsible to the appointor—the Secretary of State—whatever his or her status in the local community.
The proposal to include a proportion of parish council members on the park authorities seems to have been made simply to try to pacify the fears of some Conservative Members. They are under considerable pressure, and rightly so, to extend the democratic accountability of the authorities. It ain't going to wash. The amendment will not achieve that end, and that must be our principal concern. The national park communities and the people


who are concerned about the lack of representation will be no more satisfied tomorrow morning, if the amendment is passed, than they were before.
As it stands, the Government amendment will not improve democratic accountability to any significant extent. It cuts the number of elected members, who can serve with a mandate, because they have been elected by the local community, and increases the number who will owe their place to the Secretary of State. The one third, one third, one third proposal of the Edwards report has been torn up at a stroke.
The amendment involves an important principle. It is not simply that of no taxation without representation, because if one makes a contribution to something of national importance such as the national parks, one should expect some representation. Yes, that is correct. So one has the Secretary of State's nominees, who are the national representatives on the park authorities. The top-tier local authorities in the surrounding area have a direct responsibility and financial interest in the future of the national parks, so they, too, should be represented. Equally, the residents themselves of those national parks should be directly represented by people of their choice, not the choice of the Secretary of State—however well advised—in London.
In reality, the process of accountability will not be improved. To whom will those new members be answerable? They certainly will not be answerable to the local community. It will be impossible for the local residents to identify by whom they are represented and to whom that member is responsible. Those new members may be parish councillors, but they will not be appointed to the national parks because of their electorate's confidence in their views about the national parks. They may well be appointed because, according to the law of Buggin's turn, they have not served on the authority before and it is about time that they did something really useful. The parish councils may want someone to be chosen who has an entirely negative view of the national park in order to put grist into the mill. That may have merit, but that is scarcely what the local communities are being asked to consider.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have said, our party, and I believe most people living in the national parks, would prefer to see directly elected members on the park authorities. They would have to put their priorities and attitudes to the national park on the line before the electorate. That would ensure proper, informed local debate and a much greater sense of mandate and of accountability.
However, given that we accept, at this late hour, that the Government are unlikely to reconsider the option that we laid before the Committee—we did not press it to a vote because we hoped that they would come back with an endorsement of it—we have proposed, in amendment No. 117, a way by which we could at least ensure that there is some electoral responsibility amongst the members concerned, and that as a result they would be more democratically accountable.
We propose, in a simple amendment to the Bill, which I hope that Conservative Members from the national parks will support because I know that people in their districts will certainly support it, that those members who are

appointed from parish councils should be elected by the parish councils meeting collectively. That is a simple, obvious mechanism for achieving the improvement that we seek in the Bill. It would mean that parish councils would simply come together into one voting body on one occasion for that specific purpose.
We know, from his contribution to the debate in Committee, that the Minister is sympathetic to the principle; the object—the need to improve democratic accountability. We know from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, the Labour spokesman, that, although he may prefer to return to a previous suggestion, he acknowledges the need to improve the present position and rejects, as we do, the Minister's half-hearted step in that direction because it may be interpreted equally well as a step backwards as a step forwards.
11 pm
The Minister said, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro, following the Committee, that such a proposal will be suggested to parish councils for guidance. We cannot understand why it is possible to be as explicit as that and yet not place it in the Bill in that simple form. Incidentally, for the benefit of hon. Members from Wales, we do not understand why it is not possible to extend it to Wales. Surely the principles of democratic accountability apply as much in the Principality as they do in England.
However, the Minister said that the Government see no need to make that requirement on the face of the Bill. I believe that he must come forward in the House tonight and explain the logic of that extraordinary discrepancy. We disagree with him. Only by requiring an election in which all parish councils in the area of the national park participate can the Government even begin to claim that that is a real improvement in local representation and local accountability.

Mr. McLoughlin: I very much welcome the amendments that have been tabled by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who has direct responsibility for the Bill.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside wrote to me about those proposals as long ago as May, I decided to carry out my own consultation process. I therefore wrote to every parish council in the national park in my constituency—about 33 of them. If there is one criticism that had sometimes made itself felt, it was that there was no way in which to consult some of the parish councils directly.
I wrote because I believed that my right hon. Friend's proposals did go some way towards meeting some of the criticism that several of us made on Second Reading, to the effect that there should be a way of bringing about more local representation on the national parks. I reject any suggestion that somehow that does not go a great way towards bringing more people who live and work in the national parks on to the national park organisation. I believe that that is important and welcome.

Mr. Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: No, I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. He may make his speech, if he wishes, later.
I received several comments as a result of my consultation process with parish councils. Indeed, Hartington Middle Quarter parish council asked each of its councillors to write down their suggestions on what my right hon. Friend was saying. One comment was:
I must congratulate the Minister on his forward-thinking ideas regarding Parish Councils and his proposal to involve them in conjunction with the National Park Authority and wholly support him.
Another one said:
There are a lot of good ideas forwarded by the Minister but I am glad to see that people have realised that people also have to work and make a living in the National Parks.
A further one, which I shall read out, although modesty should perhaps have prevented me doing so, said:
Our local M.P. has come up with some good ideas which we should support in any way we can.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I could quote at length from a number of letters that warmly welcome the Government's proposals, but I see my hon. Friend the Whip on the Treasury Bench noting that the hour is late. Nevertheless, it is worth recording that I have received a letter from Monyash parish council, which says:
It was resolved that the Parish Council fully support your efforts in this direction and hope that all your hard work comes to fruition".
The letter from Winster parish council states:
It seems logical to me that people who are resident in an area obviously are more aware of local requirements than any outside bureaucrat however well intentioned that person may be".
Eyam parish council, Fenny Bentley parish council and Ashford with Sheldon parish council have made the same sorts of comments.

Mr. Morley: They are hardly likely to attack the proposals.

Mr. McLoughlin: I remind the hon. Gentleman that they are the people who live and work in national parks. It is right that they should have an important role in the decision-making process.

Mr. Morley: Did those parish councils say also that they support the idea that the Secretary of State will choose a few of their number at whim to serve on the new bodies?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have explained clearly to the parish councils the way in which the arrangement will work. They may make other suggestions, but the fact is that it is a move in the right direction. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) may shake his head, but in the past local councils with the bulk of nominations have appointed people who do not live in the area and who have nothing to do with it. That has led to great resentment. Derbyshire county council is an excellent example in that regard, because seven of the eight people whom it appointed to the bodies did not live anywhere near the national park. It is a move in the right direction. I would like to see fully elected national parks, but that is not an option before us this evening.

Mr. Tyler: That is not true; the House has before it precisely that option, which was also offered in Committee. Did the hon. Gentleman put the option of direct election to his correspondents?

Mr. McLoughlin: I introduced a ten-minute Bill in the House in an effort to improve local representation. I have been consistent in my approach to the issue. My right hon.

Friend's proposal is moving in the direction of greater local representation, and the hon. Gentleman must accept that. He is trying to skimp over the issue—but that is what we expect from the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. John Greenway: I refer my hon. Friend to the enthusiasm for the measure expressed by parish councils in his constituency. Why does he believe that that is so? Is it because the voice of the parish councils is repeatedly ignored by district councils, county councils and existing national park committees?

Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe spoke to his parish councils, he would know that one of their biggest concerns is that, although they are consulted about planning applications, their views are often ignored. It is one way of making them a part of the process.
I shall conclude my remarks about this part of the Bill and then refer to amendment No. 118. The clerk of Beeley parish council writes:
The beautiful villages and landscapes of the Peak District are host to thousands of visitors every year. The landscape of the region and the character of its villages are largely the result of the people who have lived and worked the land for centuries. It seems only just and fair that representatives of those people should be allowed some major control in the decision making processes, and not be in the hands of some separate body".
I think that that sums up very well the concerns of my constituents who live in national parks.
As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend's proposals are very welcome indeed. However, I draw his attention to my amendment No. 118. I interrupted my right hon. Friend earlier when he was speaking about quiet enjoyment of the countryside. I merely sought to stress that removing the words in question would clarify the law. I am still concerned about the wording of paragraph 2(4) of schedule 7, where it states that
a principal council shall have regard to the desirability of appointing members of a council who represent wards or (in Wales) electoral divisions, situated wholly or partly within the relevant Park.
According to "Collins Dictionary of the English Language", the word "desirable" means
Worthy of desire or recommendation … attractive.
What does desirable mean? What recourse will any member of a national park or an individual have, if councils wholly ignore that guidance? Why does such a mealy-mouthed word appear in the Bill? If such a course is desirable, why not state that it should be followed? I hope that my right hon. Friend can persuade me that some recourse exists, if that guidance is not followed by a council.

Mr. Dafis: Amendments Nos. 253 and 254 provide for direct elections and that option should be before the House. Twenty per cent. of the land area of Wales is designated as national parks. If some people have their way, current proposals would increase that figure to 30 per cent. There is considerable concern in Wales at the removal of one fifth of our country from local government control of land use and planning issues. It is essential that park boards are democratically accountable, particularly to park residents.
As I was not a member of the Standing Committee, this is my first opportunity to emphasise the considerable sense of alienation from committees felt by park residents. There is a strong belief that the needs of visitors are given


priority over the rights of residents. Recently, an attempt was made by the national park in my constituency to force residents to remove static caravans that had been in situ for 25 years, which was strongly resented by park residents. People have also been prevented—absurdly, in my view—from pursuing legitimate business activities, on the grounds that they would contravene park priorities and that park amenities would be diminished.
That sense of grievance has been compounded by the park population being insufficiently represented on park committees. The Bill's provisions do not ensure adequate representation. Paragraph 2(4) of schedule 7 requires only that relevant councils—unitary authorities in Wales, after reorganization—
shall have regard to the desirability of appointing members of a council who represent wards or (in Wales) electoral divisions, situated wholly or partly within the relevant Park.
Although I would like to hear the Minister's comments, I shall not explore the question of what a council will be required to do to prove that it did
have regard to the desirability of appointing members
in that way. What would happen if it could be shown that a council had not fulfilled that requirement? In any case, that is only one consideration and not the overriding consideration. Sub-paragraph (8) makes political balance an important consideration.
If the number of local authority members on a park board is reduced for some reason—the Bill provides for that—the Secretary of State will determine who should go. The remainder of members are the Secretary of State's nominees anyway. That does not constitute a recipe for democratic accountability to those upon whom the policies of the national parks will have the strongest impact.
11.15 pm
My amendment provides that one third of the hoard members will be directly elected by residents. That is far superior to the Secretary of State's amendment which would increase the number of his nominees, although from among parish councillors or chairmen of parish councils. There is a good chance that such people will be Tories—or at least as good a chance as there could be these days. My amendment would establish the principle of direct elections to what is, in effect, a powerful local authority that covers 20 per cent. of the land area of Wales.
The elected representatives could be from community councils such as we have in Wales. They could he county councillors or members of residents associations or members of the general public. Parks make an important contribution to local employment. The elections would stimulate interest in the positive work of the parks, a great deal of which is excellent. That would go a long way towards eliminating the sense of alienation felt. There is a danger that the alienation of park residents from the boards will be intensified by the changes. I strongly urge the House to consider my amendments Nos. 253 and 254.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My constituency forms part of the eastern border of the constituency of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and sections of three parishes are in the Peak park area. My response to these matters is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. Eight parish

councillors are represented on the board. They come from different areas but they have parish representation, and that is worth while.
As the House has heard, many parish councillors share other positions and represent authorities with wider representation and greater responsibilities than those of the parish. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire spoke about some 103 parishes in his area. In such a case, only limited bits of the Peak district are represented by any parish, and there is the problem of the interlinked wider considerations. We need experienced people from parish areas who can be drawn into much wider forms of representation.
In my constituency, areas such as Dronfield attract people precisely because they are on the edge of the Peak park, and people look to the park for recreation. It is entirely unfair to say that there should not be representation from authorities that represent people in such areas. Unfortunately, under the Bill, authorities such as North East Derbyshire district council, which might be able to qualify for representation on the board, will be placed in considerable financial difficulty.
Authorities will be precepted to take up a position. The situation might be so serious that, even when they become entitled to one place, they have to seek to instigate other provisions in the Bill to withdraw from that entitlement because they cannot afford the precepting. They will get a standard spending assessment grant of about £4,000 and, under the Bill, will be liable to be precepted by about £130,000. That is an inequitable arrangement and is a consequence of the Bill. It needs to be considered in terms of the granting of standard spending assessments, which are undoubtedly separate from the Bill but are very much part of the general framework.

Mr. Atkins: We have had an interesting debate. If I may say so yet again, it has been summed up by the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken for people who live and work in the parishes in the national parks.
I do not take kindly to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) talking almost disparagingly about parish councils. He is on record as saying in Committee to my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) that he did not think that parish councils were truly democratic representatives. I can quote the necessary column in Hansard if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, but I do not wish to delay proceedings unnecessarily.

Mr. Morley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Atkins: I shall not give way at this point. I shall continue to make the point as strongly as I can that we believe that parish councils should be better represented on parks committees. It is necessary to give them more representation. Of course, I understand why some of the county and district councillors do not like it: it is because we are giving more attention to people who live and work in the national parks, and that is what my right hon. and lion. Friends want.

Mr. Morley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Atkins: No.
I am sympathetic to the comments of hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on direct elections. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) will doubtless


have told him that we are sympathetic to that proposal. There are problems—he glossed over them. Some parishes are not, for example, wholly in a national park area and therefore there are difficulties about electoral rolls, but I have not ruled it out. One would want to try, if possible, to encourage that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) agrees with it.
The proposal is, however, more difficult than I can allow at this point, so the compromise is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have the ultimate discretion; but, as I said in my opening remarks, I do not anticipate that he would exercise that discretion. It is merely a residual power. That is probably the only difference between us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Atkins: I do not want to give way. If hon. Members will allow, we have had a good debate, we had a great debate about this subject in Committee and I do not need to persuade the House any more that my amendment is the right one.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I hoped to be allowed by the Minister to intervene briefly because I raised the issue in Committee and he has not explained one simple point. Why does he prefer a request that parish councils and the national park come together to make a selection rather than a requirement in the Bill, which is the purpose of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? Given that the Minister seems to believe that that is the appropriate mechanism, I cannot understand why he does not want to say so. I hope that he will respond to that point.

Mr. Atkins: We said in Committee that we were keen that the collective county associations of parish councils would choose, from their number, representatives to serve on the national park representing such councils. In those circumstances, the only difference between us is the point about whether there should be the Secretary of State's discretion.

Mr. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Atkins: I shall give way, but I do not want to prolong this debate. We want to get on.

Mr. Taylor: That is not the issue between us, because I am willing to accept, if necessary, that the Secretary of State should be left with the discretion. I am not clear as to why it should not be a requirement that the parish councils representing the national park areas come together rather than merely a recommendation in the Minister's regulations.

Mr. Atkins: It is simply that that is what exists now. I did not want to be too prescriptive or over-bureaucratic. At the moment, all the county associations meet and this is just another part of that process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me too far on this matter. I take the point that is being made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. I want to give more power to the parish councils, but I cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes me to go.

Mr. Morley: I am anxious to set the record straight. I made no disparaging remarks about parish councils. The difference is that the Opposition want to ensure that the

views of all those who live in and use national parks are made known. Given the state of the Government, any of my parish councils could do a far better job than them.

Mr. Atkins: That was a completely useless intervention. My hon. Friends who were members of the Committee will recall that the hon. Gentleman made disparaging remarks about parish councils. He said that they were not truly democratic representations of local people. He was quite wrong. The message that will go to all parish councils is that the Labour party does not think that they are truly democratic. That is on the record.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 56.

Division No. 184]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
French, Douglas


Amess, David
Gallie, Phil


Arbuthnot, James
Garnier, Edward


Amold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Baldry, Tony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bates, Michael
Hague, William


Batiste, Spencer
Hannam, Sir John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Harris, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Nick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heald, Oliver


Booth, Hartley
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Hendry, Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Bowis, John
Horam, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brown, M (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Burt, Alistair
Jenkin, Bernard


Butcher, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butler, Peter
Jones, Robert B (W Herftdshr)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cash, William
Knapman, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coe, Sebastian
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Congdon, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Conway, Derek
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cran, James
Legg, Barry


Davis, Quentin (Stamford)
Leigh, Edward


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lord, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Luff, Peter


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dunn, Bob
MacKay, Andrew


Dykes, Hugh
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Elletson, Harold
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mans, Keith


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Faber, David
Merchant, Piers


Fishburn, Dudley
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Sir Roger


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forth, Eric
Nelson, Anthony






Neubert, Sir Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Norris, Steve
Steen, Anthony


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stephen, Michael


Oppenheim, Phillip
Streeter, Gary


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Sweeney, Walter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sykes, John


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thomason, Roy


Richards, Rod
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Riddick, Graham
Thumnam, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tredinnick, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Timothy Wood.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Lewis, Terry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beggs, Roy
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mahon, Alice


Cann, Jamie
Marek, Dr John


Clapham, Michael
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Michael, Alun


Coffey, Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Connarty, Michael
Moriey, Elliot


Cunningharn, Jim (Covy SE)
Mudie, George


Dafis, Cynog
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Denharn, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L


Dobson, Frank
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Dowd, Jim
Ruddock, Joan


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Salmond, Alex


Foulkes, George
Simpson, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Skinner, Dennis


Graharn, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Heppell, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Timms, Stephen


Home Robertson, John
Tipping, Paddy


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wallace, James


Illsley, Eric
Wise, Audrey


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)



Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfoyle, Peter
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Kirkcwood, Archy
Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 201, in page 146, line 39, at end insert—
'() The power conferred by subsection (4) above includes power to modify any enactment contained in this or any other Act.'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 1

THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 149, line 6, at end insert—
'(2A) The Agency may, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995—

(a) pay such pensions to or in respect of any persons who are or have been its officers or employees, and
(b) make such payments towards provision for the payment of such pensions,

as it may, with the approval of the Secretary of State determine.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in page 149, line 8, leave out 'pensions'.
No. 32, in page 149, line 12, leave out 'pensions'.
No. 33, in page 149, line 15, leave out 'pensions'.
No. 34, in page 149, line 16, at end insert—
'(3A) For the purpose of exercising its functions under this paragraph as respects the management of any pension fund maintained by it, the Agency shall establish a Committee, not less than half the members of which shall be appointed after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Agency to be representative of the interests of its employees.'.
No. 35, in page 149, line 17, leave out 'sub-paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (2A) and'.
No. 36, in page 149, line 17, after 'pensions', insert 'or'.
No. 37, in page 149, line 19, after 'pensions', insert
`or, as the case may be,'.
No. 38, in page 149, line 21, at end insert—
'(5) The Agency shall secure that—

(a) so far as possible the terms and conditions of employment which apply to its employees are consistent throughout its area in respect of employees whose duties are similar or demand similar levels of skill,
(b) appropriate systems are established and maintained for the assessment of those duties and those levels, and
(c) appropriate arrangements are established and maintained for the representation of its employees, as respects matters affecting their terms and conditions of employment, by such organisations as are representative of its employees or, in a case where only some of its employees are affected, those employees.'.

No. 39, in schedule 22, page 340, line 13, at end insert—'Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995—
219. At the end of Part I of Schedule B1 to the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 (which lists the employers whose employees are eligible to be members of the Scheme) there shall be inserted the words "The Environment Agency".'.

Ms Ruddock: The amendment is extremely important, because it is the only one that has come before the House tonight that concerns the potential employees of the agency. In Committee, we faced many difficulties in trying to bring the concerns of potential employees to the attention of Ministers. However, because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not make a speech in support of the amendments. I shall merely explain their purpose. Having said that, I hope that the Minister will not give the matter any less attention. I am deeply concerned, as are my hon. Friends, about the terms and conditions awaiting employees who join the new agency.
Around 9,000 people will be transferred from the existing local government waste regulation authorities, from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority. Their futures are extremely important. The purpose of the amendments is to tackle one of the difficulties for people who transfer. Many of them are in senior positions, all are very skilled, and they are at varying stages of their careers, as well as being of varying ages.
The purpose of the amendments is, first, to make all employees of the agency eligible to be members of the local government pension scheme. Secondly, it is to restrict the agency to the provision of the local government pension scheme as opposed to any other scheme for future employees, while recognising and accepting that HMIP employees have special concerns as members of the chiefs of the civil service pension fund. Thirdly, the amendments would place an obligation on the agency to establish a joint pension committee by agreement with the relevant employee representative organisations.
The intention is to safeguard the pension rights of the potential employees of the agency. Of course, the transfer will be covered by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. There are therefore perfect precedents for the way in which a joint pension committee should be set up by agreement.
Despite having outlined the case in very few words, I hope that I have stressed the considerable importance of the amendments and our concerns for employees.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the spirit in which she moved the amendment. Of course I listened carefully, as these are important matters.
I confirm that the agency will, through secondary legislation, be designated as an administering authority for the local government pension scheme. That will allow all eligible employees to join the scheme, but we do not need the Bill to so designate the agency. The usual procedure of an amendment to the relevant statutory instrument, which will be subject to consultation with relevant parties, will be sufficient.
Furthermore, the amendments would restrict the agency's freedom to offer alternative pension arrangements to individual staff who do not wish to join the LGPS. Nor would it be appropriate to require the agency to establish a committee as proposed in amendment No. 34. LGPS regulations already require administering authorities to act prudently in the management of their funds, and the statutory limits that apply to LGPS administering authorities ensure that requirement.
As for amendment No. 38, the agency will inherit a wide variety of terms and conditions of employment. It will undoubtedly wish to draw up systems of pay, grading, terms and conditions which are more consistent than those which it inherits, but the legislation should not prevent the agency from adopting variations to take account of factors such as the job market.

Ms Ruddock: In case he was not going to cover this point, may I ask the Minister to refer to people who are placed on short-term, fixed-term or temporary contracts?

Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Lady knows, these are highly technical matters, but no less important for that. If she would like me to spell out the details by way of correspondence, I should be more than happy to do so.
I can now do no better than suggest that the hon. Lady withdraw the amendment in due course.

Ms Ruddock: In view of the Minister's remarks and his promise to write to me in some detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 60, in page 149, line 24, leave out 'Water Resources Act 1991' and insert '1991 Act'.
No. 61, in page 149, line 28, leave out 'Water Resources Act 1991' and insert '1991 Act'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 6

THE SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY

Amendment made: No. 221, in page 173, line 23, leave out paragraph 19.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 7

NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITIES

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 173, line 45, at end insert—
'(2A) In the case of a National Park authority for a National Park in England, such number as may be specified in the relevant order of the number of members of the authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State shall be parish members.'.
No. 63, in page 174, line 3, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 5 and insert '—

(a) as respects any National Park authority for a National Park in England, be two less than the number of local authority members specified in the order; and
(b) as respects any National Park authority for a National Park in Wales, be equal to half the number of local authority members specified in the order.

(4) As respects any National Park authority for a National Park in England, the number specified in the relevant order as the number of parish members to be appointed by the Secretary of State shall be one less than one half of the total number of the members of the authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(5) Accordingly—

(a) in the case of a National Park authority for a National Park in England, the effect of the relevant order shall be such that the total number of members of the authority will be an even number which is not a whole number multiple of four; and
(b) in the case of National Park authority for a National Park in Wales, the number of local authority members specified in the relevant order shall be an even number.'.

No. 64, in page 175, leave out line 6 and insert—

'Parish members of English National Park authorities

2A.—(1) The parish members of an English National Park authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) A person shall not be appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority unless he is—

(a) a member of the parish council for a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park; or
(b) the chairman of the parish meeting of a parish—

(i) which does not have a separate parish council; and
(ii) the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park.


(3) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his membership of a parish council, is appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be a member of that parish council.
(4) Sub—paragraph (3) above shall have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who on retiring from any parish council immediately becomes such a member again as a newly elected councillor; but a person who so becomes a member again shall be eligible for re—appointment to the National Park authority.
(5) Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, where a person who qualifies for his appointment by virtue of his being the chairman of a parish meeting, is appointed as a parish member of an English National Park authority, he shall hold office from the time of his appointment until he ceases to be the chairman of that parish meeting.
(6) Sub—paragraph (5) above shall have effect so as to terminate the term of office of a person who is elected to succeed himself as chairman of any parish meeting; but a person who so becomes the chairman again shall be eligible for re—appointment to the National Park authority.
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, a parish member of an English National Park authority shall hold office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(8) In this paragraph, "English National Park authority" means a National Park authority for a National Park in England.

Members (other than parish members) appointed by the Secretary of State'.

No. 65, in page 175, line 24, at end insert—
'(5) This paragraph shall not apply to persons appointed as parish members of a National Park authority for a National Park in England or to their appointment as such members.'.
No. 66, in page 175, line 46, after 'him' insert
', other than any parish member of a National Park authority for a National Park in England,'.
No. 67, in page 175, line 50, at end insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State may remove from office any parish member of a National Park authority for a National Park in England either—

(a) by giving that member such written notice of the termination of his appointment as the Secretary considers appropriate; or
(b) in such other manner as may be provided for in the terms of that member's appointment;

but a parish member shall only be removed from office in the manner mentioned in paragraph (a) above where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so in consequence of the provisions of any order for varying either the area of the relevant Park or the number of parish members of the National Park authority in question.'.
No. 68, in page 176, line 10, after 'represented;' insert—
'(cc) as respects a National Park authority for a National Park in England—

(i) any parish council for, or parish meeting of, a parish the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant Park;
(ii) any committee or sub—committee of any such parish council or any committee of any such parish meeting; or
(iii) any joint committee on which any such parish council or parish meeting is represented;'.

No. 202, in page 176, line 26, after 'from' insert "'of'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO NATIONAL PARKS

Amendments made: No. 69, in page 190, line 15, at end insert—
'() For section 88 of that Act (application to areas of outstanding natural beauty of provisions relating to National Parks) there shall be substituted—

Functions of certain bodies in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty

88.—(1) The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) paragraph (e) of subsection (4) of section six,
(b) section nine,
(c) subsection (1) of section sixty—two,
(d) subsection (5) of section sixty—four, and
(e) subsections (5) and (5A) of section sixty—five,

shall apply in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty as they apply in relation to National Parks.
(2) In paragraph (e) of subsection (4) of section six of this Act as it applies by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, the expression "appropriate planning authority" means a local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty and includes a local authority, not being a local planning authority, by whom any powers of a local planning authority as respects an area of outstanding natural beauty are exercisable, whether under this Act or otherwise.
(3) The provisions of section 4A of this Act shall apply to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of their application to areas of outstanding natural beauty as the provisions of the said section 4A apply for the purposes of Part II of this Act.
(4) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of an area of outstanding natural beauty shall have power, subject to the following provisions of this section, to take all such action as appears to them expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty or so much thereof as is included in their area.
(5) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the generality of the last foregoing subsection; but in so far as the provisions of this Act confer specific powers falling within that subsection those powers shall be exercised in accordance with those provisions and subject to any limitations expressed or implied therein.
(6) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by this Act, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect only for the purpose of removing any limitation imposed by law on the capacity of a local planning authority by virtue of its constitution, and shall not authorise any act or omission on the part of such an authority which apart from that subsection would be actionable at the suit of any person on any ground other than such a limitation.".'.

No. 70, in page 191, line 41, leave out
'in paragraph (b) of subsection (1)'
and insert '—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 67 of the Environment Act 1995 (planning authority functions under National Parks legislation to be functions of National Park authorities in certain cases),"; and
(b) in paragraph (b) of that subsection,'.

No. 71, in page 191, line 43, at end insert—
'() In subsection (3) of that section, for the words "sections 9 and 11" there shall be substituted the words "section 9".'.


No. 72, in page 191, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 2 on page 192.
No. 73, in page 201, line 11, leave out '2' and insert
'1, at the beginning of the subsection which that paragraph substitutes for subsection (1) of section 184 of the 1972 Act, there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 67 of the Environment Act 1995 (planning authority functions under National Parks legislation to be functions of National Park authorities in certain cases),".
(2) In paragraph 2 of that Schedule,'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 11

AIR QUALITY: SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 204, line 34, at end insert—
'(oo) similar to any provision made by section 79 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (statements by constables in fixed penalty cases);
(op) for presuming, in any proceedings, that any document of a prescibed description purporting to have been signed by a person to whom a fixed penalty notice has been issued has been signed by that person;'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 13

REVIEW OF OLD MINERAL PLANNING PERMISSIONS

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 207, line 29, at end insert
'; and where any such permission authorises the carrying out of development consisting of the winning and working of minerals but only in respect of any particular mineral or minerals, that permission shall not be taken, for the purposes of this Schedule, as relating to any other mineral in, on or under the land to which the permission relates.'.
No. 76, in page 220, line 33, at beginning insert
'Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below,'.
No. 77, in page 220, line 39, leave out 'an active' and insert 'a' —[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 15

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FISHERIES

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 239, line 10, at end insert—
'. After subsection (1A) of section 39 of that Act (application of Act to River Esk in Scotland) there shall be inserted—
(1B) Sections 31 to 34 and 36(2) of this Act shall, subject to the modifications set out in subsection (1C) below, apply throughout the catchment area of the River Esk in Scotland but a water bailiff shall exercise his powers under those sections as so applied only in relation to an offence—

(a) against this Act;
(b) against section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951; or
(c) which is deemed to be an offence under this Act by virtue of section 211(6) of the Water Resources Act 1991,

which he has reasonable cause to suspect has been committed in a place to which this Act applies by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above.

(1C) The modifications referred to in subsection (1B) above are—

(a) references in sections 31 to 34 of this Act to "this Act" shall be construed as including references to section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 (as applied to the River Esk by section 21 of that Act); and
(b) in section 33—

(i) references to a justice of the peace shall be construed as including references to a sheriff; and
(ii) in subsection (2), the reference to an information on oath shall be construed as including a reference to evidence on oath.".'.


No. 79, in page 239, line 22, at end insert—
'. In subsection (3) of section 43 of that Act (extent of Act to Scotland), after the words "(1A)" there shall be inserted the words ", (1B), (1C)".'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 16

POLLUTION OF RIVERS AND COASTAL WATERS IN SCOTLAND: AMENDMENT OF THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT 1974

Amendments made: No. 222, in page 244, line 14, leave out from 'person' to 'shall' in line 15.
No. 223, in page 244, line 19, leave out
'if the mine or part of the mine'
and insert
'to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 20

DELEGATION OF APPELLATE FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 252, line 48, leave out 'delegation' and insert 'appointment'.
No. 81, in page 253, line 30, leave out 'or 66(5)' and insert ',66(5) or 78S(3)'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 21

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN OTHER ENACTMENTS TO THE CROWN

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 255, line 26, at end insert—

'PART I: ENACTMENTS RELATING TO ENGLAND AND WALES'.

No. 25, in page 257, line 39, at end insert—

'PART II: ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SCOTLAND

The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968

. For section 55 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (Crown application) there shall be substituted—

Application of Act to Crown

55.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act shall bind the Crown.
(2) No contravention by the Crown of any provision made by or under this Act shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the Court of Session may, on the application of a sewerage authority, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, any provision made by or under this Act shall apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other persons.


(4) If the Secretary of State certifies that it appears to him, as respects any Crown premises and any powers of entry exercisable in relation to them specified in the certificate, that it is requisite or expedient that, in the interests of national security, the powers should not be exercisable in relation to those premises, those powers shall not be exercisable in relation to those premises.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken as in any way affecting Her Majesty in her private capacity.
(6) In this section "Crown premises" means premises held by or on behalf of the Crown.".'.

No. 26, in page 258, line 12, at end insert—

'The Water (Scotland) Act 1980

. After section 110 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted—

Application of Act to Crown

110A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Act shall bind the Crown.
(2) No contravention by the Crown of any provision made by or under this Act shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the Court of Session may, on the application of a water authority, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, any provision made by or under this Act shall apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other persons.
(4) If the Secretary of State certifies that it appears to him, as respects any Crown premises and any powers of entry exercisable in relation to them specified in the certificate, that it is requisite or expedient that, in the interests of national security, the powers should not be exercisable in relation to those premises, those powers shall not be exercisable in relation to those premises.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken as in any way affecting Her Majesty in her private capacity.
(6) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) above, the powers conferred by sections 16 to 18 above shall be exercisable in relation to land in which there is a Crown interest only with the consent of the appropriate authority.
(7) In this section—

"the appropriate authority" has the same meaning as it has in section 253(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;
"Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department;
"Crown premises" means premises held by or on behalf of the Crown.
(8) The provisions of subsection (7) of section 253 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (questions relating to Crown application) as to the determination of questions shall apply for the purposes of this section.".

The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994

. After section 125 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 there shall be inserted—

Application of Part II to Crown

125A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, this Part of this Act shall bind the Crown.
(2) No contravention by the Crown of any provision made by or under this Part of this Act shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the Court of Session may, on the application of a new water and sewerage authority, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, any provision made by or under this Part of this Act shall apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as it applies to other persons.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken as in any way affecting Her Majesty in her private capacity.
(5) Subject to subsection (4) above, the powers conferred by section 99 above shall be exercisable in relation to land in which there is a Crown interest only with the consent of the appropriate authority.
(6) In this section—

"the appropriate authority" has the same meaning as it has in section 253(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972;
"Crown interest" means an interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, or belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department;
"Crown premises" means premises held by or on behalf of the Crown.
(7) The provisions of subsection (7) of section 253 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (questions relating to Crown application) as to the determination of questions shall apply for the purposes of this section.".'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 22

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 260, line 34, leave out '52(3)' and insert '7(8)'.
No. 83, in page 260, line 34, after '1958' insert
'(definitions etc. for the purposes of section 7) in paragraph (i) of the definition of "statutory water undertakers" for the words "National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency".
(2) In section 52(3) of that Act'.
No. 84, in page 263, line 15, at end insert—

'The Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971

14A.—(1) The Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) After section 11 (duty to report discharge of oil into waters of harbours) there shall be inserted—

Certain provisions not to apply where a discharge or escape is authorised under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

11A.—(1) The provisions of sections 2(1) and (2A), 3(1) and 11(1) of this Act shall not apply to any discharge which is made under, and the provisions of section 11(1) of this Act shall not apply to any escape which is authorised by, an authorisation granted under Part I of the Environmental Protection 1990.
(2) This section does not extend to Northern Ireland."
(3) In section 25(1) (power to extend certain provisions of the Act to the Isle of Man etc.), after the words "other than section 3" there shall be inserted the word ", 11A".'.

No. 85, in page 266, line 50, at end insert—
' In section 62(2)(a) of that Act (exceptions to restrictions on the operation of loudspeakers in streets), as it has effect in relation to England and Wales, for the words "National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency".'.—[Mr. Atkins.]
Amendment proposed: No. 224, in page 269, line 14, at end insert—
'() After section 38 there shall be inserted—

General review of consents

38A.—(1) If it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State to do so he may at any time direct SEPA to review—

(a) the consents given under section 34 of this Act; or
(b) any description of such consents,

and the conditions (if any) to which those consents are subject.


(2) A direction given by virtue of subsection (1) above—

(a) shall specify the purpose for which; and
(b) may specify the manner in which,

the review is to be conducted.
(3) After carrying out the review, SEPA shall submit to the Secretary of State its proposals (if any) for—

(a) the modification of the conditions of any consent reviewed pursuant to the direction; or
(b) in the case of any such consent which is unconditional, subjecting the consent to conditions.

(4) Where the Secretary of State has received any proposals under subsection (3) above in relation to any consent he may, if it appears appropriate to him to do so, direct SEPA, in relation to that consent—

(a) to make modifications of the conditions of the consent; or
(b) in the case of an unconditional consent, to subject the consent to conditions.

(5) A direction given by virtue of subsection (4) above may direct SEPA to do, in relation to any such consent, only—

(a) any such thing as SEPA has proposed should be done in relation to that consent; or
(b) any such thing with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.".'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: Government amendment No. 225.
No. 119, in page 310, line 19, at end insert—
'129A. After section 88(2) of that Act (Defence to principal offences in respect of authorised discharges) there shall be inserted—
(2A) Nothing in any consent given under this chapter shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) above as authorising a discharge of any significant quantity of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter other than is specified in that consent.".'.
Government amendments Nos. 101 to 103 and 109.

Sir Cranley Onslow: I wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments, in particular my amendment No. 119.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside for his patience and courtesy, and for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill and the improvements that I have tried to make to it. Also, this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate him on his admission to the Privy Council.
It may seem churlish of me to point out that, in spite of the courtesy that my right hon. Friend has shown me in Committee and subsequently in written exchanges, he has not been able to satisfy the National Rivers Authority, which is very concerned about a problem that has arisen. It has been legally advised that it cannot prosecute a discharge consent holder in respect of a pollution incident, no matter how serious, if the pollution is caused by substances that are not identified in, or limited by, the terms of the consent.
The Minister has seen the letter from the chairman of the NRA on the subject, and will know the details behind the position. I can summarise it by saying that the noble Lord Crickhowell is still of his original opinion that, of the two possible options for solving that problem, the legislative option is better than the administrative solution that the Government seem to be proposing.
The House should know that that situation has arisen, and I hope that hon. Members will share my view that the NRA and the Environment Agency must be free to prosecute when a pollution incident occurs because of a discharge of unconsented or uncontrolled substances. The proposal embodied in the Government amendments does not deal with that problem.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt deploy a number of arguments against my proposal, which is for legislative change, but I hope that he will not pray in aid the fact that the proposal that he has advanced will be no burden on the agency.
The House should know that there are 95,500 consents on the register, of which 14,800 are currently monitored because of their potential or actual environmental significance. If the solution that the Government propose in the amendment is accepted, the cost of monitoring consents will be more than £1 million, and a great deal of NRA manpower and resources will have to be applied. I simply want to put the facts on the record, because it may well be that the matter will come up again for consideration in another place. But it would be wrong for the House to think that there is a solution yet to this tiresome problem.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I associate myself with comments of the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow). The Minister said in Committee that he was not an unreasonable man, and that, if it was clear from further discussions with the NRA that there was a major problem with redrafting all the existing discharge consents, he would be prepared to consider that.
The Minister will know of the press release issued on 24 June by the NRA, in which the director of water management, Clive Swinnerton, said that the loopholes we are talking about here have effectively turned the NRA's discharge consents—which are intended to control pollution by setting limits on what the holders can discharge into rivers—into licences to pollute.
Dr. Swinnerton said that he felt the Government's proposal will place an impossible burden on the NRA, and added that it was vital that an amendment to close the loophole be immediately included in the Bill. It would have been nice if immediately were to mean tonight, but I am disappointed that the Government have not taken on board their further discussions with the NRA.
As hon. Members have placed the matter on record tonight, it may be taken up in another place before the Bill ends up as legislation. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is an unresolved issue here, which needs to be resolved before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Atkins: I am extraordinarily grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow). A compliment from one such as he—particularly on matters relating to such a distinguished body as the Privy Council—is one to be treasured, and I do so.
In relation to his amendment, my right hon. Friend was kind enough to say that he and I have tried to address this matter together—so far, regrettably, without the success that my right hon. Friend apparently required. The effect of amendment No. 119 would be to change the law, but not in the largely declaratory manner suggested. In fact, the amendment would have the potential to change overnight the requirements placed on dischargers, without


any prior consultation and with unpredictable consequences, the precise effect of which would depend on the wording of the discharge consents.
The amendment would leave dischargers throughout the country uncertain as to their legal responsibilities and about the threat of prosecution. I need hardly say that that would be highly controversial. Not surprisingly, the representatives of some major dischargers were concerned about the potential effects of the amendments. Any approach on these matters therefore needs to be thought through fully.
In relation to the letter to which my right hon. Friend referred, I have had an opportunity through his kindness to be able to seek some advice. The figures in the NRA letter are inevitably based on assumptions, and the estimates made by the NRA seem to be at the top end, as it admits. It is far from clear whether all the consents need to be reviewed, and the NRA accepts that some types of consent are likely to be more significant than others. In particular, it is not clear whether descriptive consents would need to be reviewed, and those form the bulk of current consents.
The amount of effort involved will clearly depend on the degree of standardisation in consents, and it is not unreasonable to assume that there will be a high degree of standardisation within regions and between dischargers of the same type. Before issuing any direction to the NRA, they would clearly want to consider how the amount of effort involved could be minimised. The fundamental point remains: that the easiest or cheapest course of action is not necessarily the right one.
I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall keep a close eye on this issue, about which I know he feels strongly. The representations that he has made to me will be conveyed to those who make the decisions in these matters. In those circumstances, I hope that he will understand why I ask him not to press his amendment No. 119.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 225, in page 269, line 15, at end insert—
'() in subsection (1), in each of paragraphs (b) and (c), for the words "the preceding section" there shall be substituted the words "section 38 of this Act";'.
No. 226, in page 273, line 38, leave out
'if the mine or part of the mine'
and insert
'to the owner or former operator of any mine or part of a mine if the mine or part'.
No. 227, in page 274, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—

'(aa) requirements for consultation, before the service of a works notice, with persons other than the person on whom that notice is to be served;
(b) steps to be taken for the purposes of any consultation required under subsection (4) above or regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) above;'.

No. 228, in page 274, line 37, at end insert—
'(5A) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (4) above or of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) of subsection (5) above.'.
No. 229, in page 274, line 47, after 'or' insert 'former'.

No. 230, in page 275, line 10, at end insert—

'Grant of and compensation for, rights of entry etc.

46AA.—(1) A works notice may require a person to carry out operations in relation to any land or waters notwithstanding that he is not entitled to carry out those operations.
(2) Any person whose consent is required before any operations required by a works notice may be carried out shall grant, or join in granting, such rights in relation to any land or waters as will enable the person on whom the works notice is served to comply with any requirements imposed by the works notice.
(3) Before serving a works notice, SEPA shall reasonably endeavour to consult every person who appears to it—

(a) to be the owner or occupier of any relevant land, and
(b) to be a person who might be required by subsection (2) above to grant, or join in granting, any rights,

concerning the rights which that person may be so required to grant.
(4) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (3) above.
(5) A person who grants, or joins in granting, any rights pursuant to subsection (2) above shall be entitled, on making an application within such period as may be prescribed and in such manner as may be prescribed to such person as may be prescribed, to be paid by the person on whom the works notice in question is served compensation of such amount as may be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of the regulations that may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above, regulations by virtue of that subsection may make such provision in relation to compensation under this section as may be made by regulations by virtue of subsection (4) of section 35A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to compensation under that section.
(7) In this section—

relevant land" means—

(a) any land or waters in relation to which the works notice in question requires, or may require, operations to be carried out; or
(b) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land or those waters;
"works notice" means a works notice under section 46A of this Act.'.
No. 231, in page 275, line 49, at end insert—
'(6) This section is subject to section 112 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals).'.
No. 232, in page 277, line 49, at end insert—
'()In section 56(1) (interpretation of Part II), the following definition shall be inserted in the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

"operations" includes works;".'.

No. 86, in page 280, line 21, at end insert—

'The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

30A. In section 44 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (interpretation of Part I of that Act) after subsection (1A) (certain provisions of that Act, including section 16 (obtaining information about land), to have effect as if the Broads Authority were a local authority) there shall be inserted—
(1B) Section 16 of this Act shall have effect as if the Environment Agency were a local authority.".'.
No. 87, in page 281, line 24, at end insert—
'(3) In section 122(2) of that Act (matters to which, so far as practicable, regard is to be had by local authorities in exercising their functions under the Act) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
(bb) the strategy prepared under section 79 of the Environment Act 1995 (national air quality strategy);".'.


No. 88, in page 282, leave out lines 18 to 29 and insert—
'(6) Subsection (2) of that section (disclosure of information between certain authorities) shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 89, in page 284, line 6, at end insert—
'In Schedule 4 to that Act (other powers etc. of licence holders) in paragraph 4(1)(b) (power for certain bodies to execute works involving alterations of electric lines or plant) for the words "National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency".'.
No. 90, in page 286, line 29, at end insert—
'(2) At the end of subsection (12) of that section (definition of "relevant enactments" for the purposes of subsection (2)) there shall be added "; and
(g) section 86 of the Environment Act 1995.".'.
No. 91, in page 291, line 22, at end insert—
'After section 35 of that Act there shall be inserted—

Compensation where rights granted pursuant to section 35(4) or 38(9A)

35A.—(1) This section applies in any case where—

(a) the holder of a licence is required—

(i) by the conditions of the licence; or
(ii) by a requirement imposed under section 38(9) below,

to carry out any works or do any other thing which he is not entitled to carry out or do;
(b) a person whose consent would be required has, pursuant to the requirements of section 35(4) above or 38(9A) below, granted, or joined in granting, to the holder of the licence any rights in relation to any land; and
(c) those rights, or those rights together with other rights, are such as will enable the holder of the licence to comply with any requirements imposed on him by the licence or, as the case may be, under section 38(9) below.

(2) In a case where this section applies, any person who has granted, or joined in granting, the rights in question shall be entitled to be paid compensation under this section by the holder of the licence.
(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the descriptions of loss and damage for which compensation is payable under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) provide for the basis on which any amount to be paid by way of compensation under this section is to be assessed;
(b) without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) and paragraph (a) above, provide for compensation under this section to be payable in respect of—

(i) any effect of any rights being granted, or
(ii) any consequence of the exercise of any rights which have been granted;

(c) provide for the times at which any entitlement to compensation under this section is to arise or at which any such compensation is to become payable;
(d) provide for the persons or bodies by whom, and the manner in which, any dispute—

(i) as to whether any, and (if so) how much and when, compensation under this section is payable; or
(ii) as to the person to or by whom it shall be paid, is to be determined;

(e) provide for when or how applications may be made for compensation under this section;
(f) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above, provide for when or how applications may be made for the determination of any such disputes as are mentioned in that paragraph;

(g) without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (e) and (f) above, prescribe the form in which any such applications as are mentioned in those paragraphs are to be made;
(h) make provision similar to any provision made by paragraph 8 of Schedule 19 to the Water Resources Act 1991;
(j) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons or circumstances;
(k) include such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.".'.

No. 92, in page 292, line 53, at end insert—
'(14) This section shall have effect subject to section 36A below.
. After section 36 of that Act there shall be inserted—

Consultation before the grant of certain licences

36A.—(1) This section applies where an application for a licence has been duly made to a waste regulation authority, and the authority proposes to issue a licence subject (by virtue of section 35(4) above) to any condition which might require the holder of the licence to—

(a) carry out any works, or
(b) do any other thing,

which he might not be entitled to carry out or do.
(2) Before issuing the licence, the waste regulation authority shall serve on every person appearing to the authority to be a person falling within subsection (3) below a notice which complies with the requirements set out in subsection (4) below.
(3) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is the owner, lessee or occupier of any land; and
(b) that land is land in relation to which it is likely that, as a consequence of the licence being issued subject to the condition in question, rights will have to be granted by virtue of section 35(4) above to the holder of the licence.

(4) A notice served under subsection (2) above shall—

(a) set out the condition in question;
(b) indicate the nature of the works or other things which that condition might require the holder of the licence to carry out or do; and
(c) specify the date by which, and the manner in which, any representations relating to the condition or its possible effects are to be made to the waste regulation authority by the person on whom the notice is served.

(5) The date which, pursuant to subsection (4)(c) above, is specified in a notice shall be a date not earlier than the date on which expires the period—

(a) beginning with the date on which the notice is served, and
(b) of such length as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Before the waste regulation authority issues the licence it must, subject to subsection (7) below, consider any representations made in relation to the condition in question, or its possible effects, by any person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (2) above.
(7) Subsection (6) above does not require the waste regulation authority to consider any representations made by a person after the date specified in the notice served on him under subsection (2) above as the date by which his representations in relation to the condition or its possible effects are to be made.
(8) In subsection (3) above—

owner", in relation to any land in England and Wales, means the person who—

(a) is for the time being receiving the rack-rent of the land, whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for another person; or


(b) would receive the rack-rent if the land were let at a rack-rent,

but does not include a mortgagee not in possession; and
owner", in relation to any land in Scotland, means a person (other than a creditor in a heritable security not in possession of the security subjects) for the time being entitled to receive or who would, if the land were let, be entitled to receive, the rents of the land in connection with which the word is used and includes a trustee, factor, guardian or curator and in the case of public or municipal land includes the persons to whom the management of the land is entrusted.".'
No. 93, in page 293, line 7, at end insert—
'(3) After subsection (6) of that section (cases where an application for modification is deemed to have been rejected) there shall be added—
(7) This section shall have effect subject to section 37A below.
. After section 37 of that Act there shall be inserted—

Consultation before certain variations

37A.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a waste regulation authority proposes to modify a licence under section 37(1) or (2)(a) above; and
(b) the licence, if modified as proposed, would be subject to a relevant new condition.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a "relevant new condition" is any condition by virtue of which the holder of the licence might be required to carry out any works or do any other thing—

(a) which he might not be entitled to carry out or do, and
(b) which he could not be required to carry out or do by virtue of the conditions to which, prior to the modification, the licence is subject.

(3) Before modifying the licence, the waste regulation authority shall serve on every person appearing to the authority to be a person falling within subsection (4) below a notice which complies with the requirements set out in subsection (5) below.
(4) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is the owner, lessee or occupier of any land; and
(b) that land is land in relation to which it is likely that, as a consequence of the licence being modified so as to be subject to the relevant new condition in question, rights will have to be granted by virtue of section 35(4) above to the holder of the licence.

(5) A notice served under subsection (3) above shall—

(a) set out the relevant new condition in question;
(b) indicate the nature of the works or other things which that condition might require the holder of the licence to carry out or do but which he could not be required to carry out or do by virtue of the conditions (if any) to which, prior to the modification, the licence is subject; and
(c) specify the date by which, and the manner in which, any representations relating to the condition or its possible effects are to be made to the waste regulation authority by the person on whom the notice is served.

(6) The date which, pursuant to subsection (5)(c) above, is specified in a notice shall be a date not earlier than the date on which expires the period—

(a) beginning with the date on which the notice is served, and
(b) of such length as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(7) Before the waste regulation authority issues the licence it must, subject to subsection (8) below, consider any representations made in relation to the condition in question, or its possible effects, by any person on whom a notice has been served under subsection (3) above.

(8) Subsection (7) above does not require the waste regulation authority to consider any representations made by a person after the date specified in the notice served on him under subsection (3) above as the date by which his representations in relation to the condition or its possible effects are to be made.
(9) A waste regulation authority may postpone the service of any notice or the consideration of any representations required under the foregoing provisions of this section so far as the authority considers that by reason of an emergency it is appropriate to do so.
(10) In subsection (3) above, "owner" has the same meaning as it has in subsection (3) of section 36A above by virtue of subsection (8) of that section.".'.

No. 94, in page 293, line 9, leave out '(12)' and insert
'(9) (power to require certain measures to be taken where licence suspended) there shall be inserted—

"(9A) A requirement imposed under subsection (9) above may require the holder of a licence to carry out works or do other things notwithstanding that he is not entitled to carry out the works or do the thing and any person whose consent would be required shall grant, or join in granting, the holder of the licence such rights in relation to the land as will enable the holder of the licence to comply with any requirements imposed on him under that subsection.
(9B) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 36A above shall, with the necessary modifications, apply where the authority proposes to impose a requirement under subsection (9) above which may require the holder of a licence to carry out any such works or do any such thing as is mentioned in subsection (9A) above as they apply where the authority proposes to issue a licence subject to any such condition as is mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, but as if—

(a) the reference in subsection (3) of that section to section 35(4) above were a reference to subsection (9A) above; and
(b) any reference in those subsections—


(i) to the condition, or the condition in question, were a reference to the requirement; and
(ii) to issuing a licence were a reference to serving a notice, under subsection (12) below, effecting the requirement.

(9C) The authority may postpone the service of any notice or the consideration of any representations required under section 36A above, as applied by subsection (9B) above, so far as the authority considers that by reason of an emergency it is appropriate to do so."
(2) After subsection (12) of that section (revocations and suspensions etc. to be effected by service of notice)'.

No. 179, in page 298, leave out lines 2 to 7 and insert—
' "(1A) No matter shall constitute a statutory nuisance to the extent that it consists of, or is caused by, any land being in a contaminated state.
(1B) Land is in a "contaminated state" for the purposes of subsection (1A) above if, and only if, it is in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that—

(a) harm is being caused or there is a possibility of harm being caused; or
(b) pollution of controlled waters is being, or is likely to be, caused;

and in this subsection "harm", "pollution of controlled waters" and "substance" have the same meaning as in Part IIA of this Act.".'.
No. 203, in page 299, line 8, leave out
'Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below,'.—[Mr. Atkins.]


Amendment proposed: No. 95, in page 303, line 26, at end insert—
'After section 93 of that Act (interpretation of Part III) there shall be inserted—

PART IIIA PROMOTION OF THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER

Duty to promote the efficient use of water

93A.—(1) It shall be the duty of every water undertaker to promote the efficient use of water by its customers.
(2) The duty of a water undertaker under this section shall be enforceable under section 18 above—

(a) by the Secretary of State; or
(b) with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, by the Director.

(3) Nothing in this Part shall have effect to authorise or require a water undertaker to impose any requirement on any of its customers or potential customers.

Power of Director to impose requirements on water undertakers

93B.—(1) The Director may require a water undertaker, in its performance of its duty under section 93A above, to—

(a) take any such action; or
(b) achieve any such overall standards of performance, as he may specify in the document imposing the requirement.

(2) Where the Director, in the document imposing a requirement on a water undertaker under subsection (1) above, stipulates that any contravention of the requirement by the undertaker will be a breach of its duty under section 93A above, any contravention of that requirement by the undertaker shall be a breach of that duty.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, a requirement under that subsection may—

(a) require a water undertaker to make available to its customers or potential customers such facilities as may be specified in the document imposing the requirement;
(b) require a water undertaker to provide or make available to its customers or potential customers such information as may be specified in the document imposing the requirement, and may specify the form in which, the times at which or the frequency with which any such information is to be provided or made available.

(4) In exercising his powers under this section in relation to any water undertaker the Director shall have regard to the extent to which water resources are available to that undertaker.
(5) Before imposing any requirement on a water undertaker under subsection (1) above the Director shall consult that undertaker.
(6) Nothing in this section authorises the Director to impose any requirement on a water undertaker which has or may have the effect of authorising or requiring that undertaker to impose any requirement on any of its customers or potential customers.

Publicity of requirements imposed under section 93B

93C.—(1) Where, under section 93B(1) above, the Director imposes any requirement on a water undertaker, the Director may arrange for that requirement to be publicised in any such manner as he may consider appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of that undertaker's customers.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Director may arrange for such publicising of the requirement as is mentioned in that subsection by—

(a) himself publicising the requirement or causing it to be publicised; or
(b) directing the undertaker to inform or arrange to inform its customers of the requirement.

Information as to compliance with requirements under section 93B

93D.—(1) Where a water undertaker is subject to any requirement imposed under section 93B(1) above, the Director may arrange for there to be given to the customers of that undertaker at any such times or with such frequency, and in any such manner, as he may consider appropriate, such information about the level of performance achieved by the undertaker in relation to that requirement as appears to the Director to be expedient to be given to those customers.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Director may arrange for such giving of information as is mentioned in that subsection by—

(a) himself disseminating the information or causing it to be disseminated; or
(b) directing the undertaker to give or arrange to give the information to its customers.

(3) At such times and in such form or manner as the Director may direct, a water undertaker shall provide the Director with such information as may be specified in the direction in connection with the undertaker's performance in relation to any requirement imposed upon the undertaker under section 93B(1) above.
(4) A water undertaker who fails without reasonable excuse to do anything required of him by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.".'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Mrs. Helen Jackson: This amendment would place a new duty on the Environment Agency to conserve water supplies. Many people, not just in the House but outside it, are amazed that the Government should seek to include an important new duty in the Bill at this stage, without any discussion in Committee of how it relates to the requirement to conserve water that is placed on customers, companies and sewerage undertakers. People are amazed that the Government are introducing this amendment at this late hour of three minutes to midnight.
Having read the amendment and received some briefing on it from the House of Commons Library, I believe that it is important to understand that it places a duty on the water authorities to ensure that conservation of water is undertaken by water customers. Why is the duty to conserve water being placed on domestic customers first and foremost, and not on companies? Both companies and customers should have a duty to conserve water supplies. Because the duty is placed only on customers in their homes, there could be a danger to public health if pressure is put on people to conserve water, especially if that pressure is exerted through prices being pushed up above the level that people can afford.
We want some assurance that the amendment would not involve an extension of compulsory metering. We are relieved that new section 93A(6) says that the clause should not be interpreted as a way for the director general to impose on water companies a requirement to make domestic customers conserve water in a particular way. Will the Minister assure me that that subsection ensures that water companies' customers will continue to have a choice in how they are charged for water services? Will he also reassure me that that is precisely what is meant by the answer that I was given two days ago by the Minister, who has now left the Chamber—

Mr. Atkins: No, I have not.

Mrs. Jackson: I beg the Minister's pardon. His answer said that it is for water companies to decide the most appropriate method of charging in their areas. That is


particularly important in areas such as Yorkshire, where the water undertaker is keen to allow all customers of water and sewerage services to choose the charging method to be imposed on them.
12 midnight
As the Secretary of State and Ministers are aware, many people who live in new properties that were built after water privatisation in 1989 and have no rateable value are not given the choice of paying for their water by a notional property value or by metering, but must pay a metered charge. That has caused a great deal of aggravation in many parts of the country. The issue is still not resolved and we shall discuss it in the House under the auspices of the water group next Wednesday, when we have a water day to consider charging systems. It will then be clear that many of the major water and sewerage undertakers are not happy with the fact that we are moving towards compulsory metering.
If the Minister reassures us that amendment No. 95 does not lead us in that direction, members of the water group and many Opposition Members can return to their constituents and say that the pressure that they have put on the Government against compulsory metering has at last been recognised in amendment No. 95 and that responsibility for conservation will not be at the expense of extra costs on domestic households, who need adequate water supplies.

Sir Paul Beresford: I reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) that the amendment seeks to promote increased efficiency in the use of water by customers and we believe that the water companies are in the best position to do that. I assure her that the amendment does not allow compulsory metering, but it would allow the director general to require water companies to offer facilities and information to their customers, which will encourage them to take informed decisions about the efficient use of their water.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed: No. 96, in page 303, line 26, at end insert—
'After section 101 of that Act (which provides for the determination of certain details in relation to requisitioned sewers) there shall be insertedx2014;

Provision of public sewers otherwise than by requisition

Further duty to provide sewers

101A.—(1) Without prejudice to section 98 above, it shall be the duty of a sewerage undertaker to provide a public sewer to be used for the drainage for domestic sewerage purposes of premises in a particular locality in its area if the conditions specified in subsection (2) below are satisfied.
(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

(a) that the premises in question, or any of those premises, are premises on which there are buildings each of which, with the exception of any shed, glasshouse or other outbuilding appurtenant to a dwelling and not designed or occupied as living accommodation, is a building erected before, or whose erection was substantially completed by, 20th June 1995;
(b) that the drains or sewers used for the drainage for domestic sewerage purposes of the premises in question do not, either directly or through an intermediate drain or sewer, connect with a public sewer; and

(c) that the drainage of any of the premises in question in respect of which the condition specified in paragraph (a) above is satisfied is giving, or is likely to give, rise to such adverse effects to the environment or amenity that it is appropriate, having regard to any guidance issued under this section by the Secretary of State and all other relevant considerations, to provide a public sewer for the drainage for domestic sewerage purposes of the premises in question.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(c) above, regard shall be had to the following considerations, so far as relevant, in determining whether it is appropriate for any sewer to be provided by virtue of this section—

(a) the geology of the locality in question or of any other locality;
(b) the number of premises, being premises on which there are buildings, which might reasonably be expected to be drained by means of that sewer;
(c) the costs of providing that sewer;
(d) the nature and extent of any adverse effects to the environment or amenity arising, or likely to arise, as a result of the premises or, as the case may be, the locality in question not being drained by means of a public sewer; and
(e) the extent to which it is practicable for those effects to be overcome otherwise than by the provision (whether by virtue of this section or otherwise) of public sewers, and the costs of so overcoming those effects.

(4) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section may—

(a) relate to how regard is to be had to the considerations mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) above;
(b) relate to any other matter which the Secretary of State considers may be a relevant consideration in any case and to how regard is to be had to any such matter;
(c) set out considerations, other than those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) above, to which (so far as relevant) regard shall be had in determining whether it is appropriate for any sewer to be provided by virtue of this section;
(d) relate to how regard is to be had to any such consideration as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above;
(e) without prejudice to paragraphs (a) to (d) above, relate to how a sewerage undertaker is to discharge its functions under this section.

(5) Before issuing guidance under this section the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Environment Agency;
(b) the Director; and
(c) such other bodies or persons as he considers appropriate;

and the Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance issued by him under this section to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.
(6) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the duty of a sewerage undertaker by virtue of subsection (1) above shall be enforceable under section 18 above—

(a) by the Secretary of State; or
(b) with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, by the Director.

(7) Any dispute between a sewerage undertaker and an owner or occupier of any premises in its area as to—

(a) whether the undertaker is under a duty by virtue of subsection (1) above to provide a public sewer to be used for any such drainage of those premises as is mentioned in that subsection;


(b) the domestic sewerage purposes for which any such sewer should be provided; or
(c) the time by which any such duty of the undertaker should be performed,

shall be determined by the Environment Agency, and may be referred to the Environment Agency for determination by either of the parties to the dispute.
(8) The Environment Agency—

(a) shall notify the parties of the reasons for its decision on any dispute referred to it under subsection (7) above; and
(b) may make any such recommendations, or give any such guidance, relating to or in connection with the drainage of the premises or locality in question as it considers appropriate.

(9) The decision of the Environment Agency on any dispute referred to it under subsection (7) above shall be final.
(10) A sewerage undertaker shall only be taken to be in breach of its duty under subsection (I) above where, and to the extent that, it has accepted, or the Environment Agency has determined under this section, that it is under such a duty and where any time accepted by it, or determined by the Environment Agency under this section, as the time by which the duty is to that extent to be performed has passed.".'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 266, in page 303, line 26, at end insert—
'94A. In section 94 of that Act (general duty to provide sewerage system) at the end of subsection 1 shall be added—
—"; (c) to make provision for the reception, treatment and disposal of the contents of cesspools and septic tanks (whether inside its area or elsewhere).".'.
Government amendments Nos. 97, 105 and 108.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the amendment make it easier or more difficult for my constituents and those of many other hon. Members on both sides of the House who live in rural areas to gain access to the wherewithal to be connected to mains sewerage? A minority of householders are not connected to mains water supplies, but many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members are not connected to mains sewerage systems. The amendment is designed to get rid of the Government grant regime that has been used to help meet the connection costs of new sewerage services.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady is right. The purpose of the amendment is to make easier the provision of first-time connection to mains sewerage of existing premises.

Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not clear how the loss of the Government grant regime will make it easier for customers and water undertakers to finance the connections.

Sir Paul Beresford: The amendment puts a new requirement on sewerage undertakers to provide the public sewers to be used for domestic purposes by premises in any locality in their area, in particular where the existing system has had adverse effects on the environment or an amenity.

Mrs. Jackson: What about the costs? I am sure that we all recognise that water and sewerage undertakers have a duty, in this day and age, to provide mains sewerage to

all residents, but at a cost. Who is to bear that cost? That question must be answered before the Opposition will allow the amendment to be passed.

Sir Roger Moate: I want to speak to amendment No. 266, which has been grouped with Government amendment No. 96. I am conscious of the hour, so I shall not speak at great length, although the subject is of considerable importance.
Amendment No. 266 is virtually the last amendment to this large Bill, so I feel like the man at the end of the lord mayor's show. As I am dealing with the contents of cesspools and septic tanks, that is probably an appropriate reference.
I was asked to table the amendment by the Kent Association of District Councils because a serious problem in my constituency, as well as in other parts of Kent and the south-east, and probably nationally, affects thousands of people with cesspools or septic tanks. I have 1,400 such households in my constituency, and I expect that there are thousands across the country. I do not suppose that there is an national association of septic tank or cesspool owners, but if there were, it would deluge other hon. Members with its complaints.
The problem is that in recent years the costs have risen, in many cases by between 300 and 400 per cent. I assure the House that that increase poses a serious problem to the householders affected. All other charges levied by sewerage undertakers are regulated by the Government watchdog, Ofwat. The reception of the contents of septic tanks and cesspits is not so regulated. The problem has affected the south-east in particular, but I suspect that it is experienced nationwide.
The amendment would enable Ofwat to regulate prices charged by the privatised water companies for the reception of such contents at their waste water treatment plants. At the moment, I understand that no power exists to regulate those prices. Ofwat has attempted to do that, but its jurisdiction has been successfully disputed by the water companies.
The amendment would resolve the problem and spell it out that the treatment of the contents of cesspools and septic tanks should come within the power and control of the regulator. That is its purpose.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can accept the amendment. It is sensible and simple. If he cannot accept it, will he at least tell us that efforts are being made to resolve the problem and to extend the power of Ofwat? If he cannot even do that, will he at least try to do something to solve that serious problem?

Mr. Morley: What about the cesspits?

Sir Paul Beresford: I shall leave it to the Opposition to look into the cesspits.
If I may answer the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) first, amendment No. 97 inserts a new subsection (3A) into section 142 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and a new subsection (3A) into section 143 of the 1991 Act, which would provide that the costs of complying with the new requirement by the sewerage undertaker will be recoverable by a charges scheme only and spread across customers generally within the area of that undertaker. That acknowledges that there


will be wider benefits to the local environment beyond those enjoyed by the household connected to the mains sewers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) is correct that it is a problem that is being looked into by the Director General of Water Services. He does not have a jurisdiction and he is considering whether he should suggest that that should happen. However, he has to take into account the fact that in some areas—obviously not in my hon. Friend's area—there is competition in the form of the private sector, so he has to reflect whether, by inhibiting or setting charges, he ruins the effect of competition. I am sure that, of the Members of the House, my hon. Friend would be one who would not wish that to happen.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 97, in page 306, line 5, at end insert—

' —(1) Section 142 of that Act (powers of undertakers to charge) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (2) (manner in which charging powers to be exercised) for the words "subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3) and (3A)".
(3) After subsection (3) (restriction on charging by agreement for trade effluent functions) there shall be inserted—

(3A) The power of a sewerage undertaker to charge, by virtue of subsection (1) above, for any services provided in the course of carrying out its duty under section 101A(1) above shall be exercisable only by or in accordance with a charges scheme under section 143 below.
. In section 143 of that Act (charges schemes) after subsection (3) (charges which may be imposed in certain cases) there shall be inserted—
(3A) A sewerage undertaker is under a duty to ensure that any charges scheme made by the undertaker, so far as having effect to recover the undertaker's costs of providing a sewer by virtue of its duty under section 101A(1) above, causes those costs to be borne by the undertaker's customers generally; and a sewerage undertaker's duty under this subsection shall be enforceable under section 18 above—

(a) by the Secretary of State; or
(b) with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State, by the Director."

. Section 151 of that Act shall cease to have effect.'.
No. 98, in page 306, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert—

'(2) In subsection (3)(a) of that section (exception for disclosure of information for purposes of functions under certain enactments)—

(a) for the words "the NRA" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency"; and
(b) for the words "or the Water Act 1989" there shall be substituted the words ", the Water Act 1989, Part I or IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Environment Act 1995".

(3) In subsection (4), in paragraph (a) (which provides that nothing in subsection (1) shall limit the matters which may be included in reports made by specified bodies under specified enactments)—

(a) for the words "the NRA" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency"; and

(b) for the words "or of the Water Resources Act 1991" there shall be substituted the words ", Part I or IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Water Resources Act 1991 or the Environment Act 1995".

No. 207, in page 316, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert—

'(aa) requirements for consultation, before the service of a works notice, with persons other than the person on whom that notice is to be served;
(b) steps to be taken for the purposes of any consultation required under subsection (4) above or regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) above;'.

No. 208, in page 316, line 46, at end insert—
'(5A) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (4) above or of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (aa) of subsection (5) above.'.
No. 192, in page 317, line 4, at end insert 'former'.
No. 209, in page 317, line 25, at end insert—

'Grant of and compensation for, rights of entry etc.

161AA.—(1) A works notice may require a person to carry out works or operations in relation to any land or waters notwithstanding that he is not entitled to carry out those works or operations.
(2) Any person whose consent is required before any works or operations required by a works notice may be carried out shall grant, or join in granting, such rights in relation to any land or waters as will enable the person on whom the works notice is served to comply with any requirements imposed by the works notice.
(3) Before serving a works notice, the Agency shall reasonably endeavour to consult every person who appears to it—

(a) to be the owner or occupier of any relevant land, and
(b) to be a person who might be required by subsection (2) above to grant, or join in granting, any rights,

concerning the rights which that person may be so required to grant.
(4) A works notice shall not be regarded as invalid, or as invalidly served, by reason only of any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (3) above.
(5) A person who grants, or joins in granting, any rights pursuant to subsection (2) above shall be entitled, on making an application within such period as may be prescribed and in such manner as may be prescribed to such person as may be prescribed, to be paid by the person on whom the works notice in question is served compensation of such amount as may be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of the regulations that may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above, regulations by virtue of that subsection may make such provision in relation to compensation under this section as may be made by regulations by virtue of subsection (4) of section 35A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to compensation under that section.
(7) In this section—

prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
relevant land" means—

(a) any land or waters in relation to which the works notice in question requires, or may require, works or operations to be carried out; or
(b) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land or those waters;

"works notice" means a works notice under section 161A above.'.
No. 210, in page 318, line 13, at end insert—
'(6) This section is subject to section 112 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals).'.


No. 211, in page 318, line 36, at end insert—
'150A. In section 162 of that Act (other powers to deal with foul water or pollution) in subsection (1) (which refers to section 161 of that Act) for the words "section 161" there shall be substituted the words "sections 161 to 161C".'.
No. 99, in page 322, leave out lines 43 to 46 and insert—

' 150.—(1) Section 204 of that Act (restriction on disclosure of information with respect to any particular business) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (2)(a) (exception for disclosure of information for purposes of functions under certain enactments)—

(a) for the words "the Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency"; and
(b) for the words "or the Water Act 1989" there shall be substituted the words ", the Water Act 1989, Part I or IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the 1995 Act".

(3) In subsection (3), in paragraph (a) (which provides that nothing in subsection (1) shall limit the matters which may be included in reports made by specified bodies under specified enactments)—

(a) after sub-paragraph (i), there shall be inserted—

"(ia) the Scottish Environment Protection Agency;"; and

(b) for the words "or that Act of 1991" there shall be substituted the words ", Part I or IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, that Act of 1991 or the 1995 Act".

(4) In paragraph (b) of that subsection, after the words "that Act" there shall be inserted the words "of 1991".'.

No. 100, in page 323, line 36, leave out '(local inquiries)' and insert '(inquiries and other hearings)'.

No. 212, in page 324, line 9, after '(b)' insert—

'(i) after the words "161" there shall be inserted the words "to 161C"; and
(ii)'.

No. 101, in page 324, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'there' and insert—
'168A. In Schedule 10 to that Act (discharge consents) after paragraph 7 (restriction on variation and revocation of consent and previous variation) there shall be added—

General review of consents

8.—(1) If it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State to do so he may at any time direct the Authority to review—

(a) the consents given under paragraphs 2 and 5 above, or
(b) any description of such consents,

and the conditions (if any) to which those consents are subject.
(2) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) shall specify the purpose for which, and
(b) may specify the manner in which,

the review is to be conducted.
(3) After carrying out a review pursuant to a direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State its proposals (if any) for—

(a) the modification of the conditions of any consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, or
(b) in the case of any unconditional consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, subjecting the consent to conditions.

(4) Where the Secretary of State has received any proposals from the Authority under sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to any consent he may, if it appears appropriate to him to do so, direct the Authority to do, in relation to that consent, anything mentioned in paragraph 6(2)(b) or (c) above

(5) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above may only direct the Authority to do, in relation to any consent,—

(a) any such thing as the Authority has proposed should be done in relation to that consent, or
(b) any such thing with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate."

169. For that Schedule'.

No. 102, in page 324, line 41, at end insert—
'(lA) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may make provision for enabling the Agency to direct or determine that any such advertising of an application as is required under sub-paragraph ( 1 )(b) above may, in any case, be dispensed with if, in that case, it appears to the Agency to be appropriate for that advertising to be dispensed with.'.

No. 103, in page 329, line 54, at end insert—

'General review of consents

8A.—(1) If it appears appropriate to the Secretary of State to do so he may at any time direct the Agency to review—

(a) the consents given under paragraph 3 or 6 above, or
(b) any description of such consents, and the conditions (if any) to which those consents are subject.

(2) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) shall specify the purpose for which, and
(b) may specify the manner in which,

the review is to be conducted.
(3) After carrying out a review pursuant to a direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the Agency shall submit to the Secretary of State its proposals (if any) for—

(a) the modification of the conditions of any consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, or
(b) in the case of any unconditional consent reviewed pursuant to the direction, subjecting the consent to conditions.

(4) Where the Secretary of State has received any proposals from the Agency under sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to any consent he may, if it appears appropriate to him to do so, direct the Agency to do, in relation to that consent, anything mentioned in paragraph 7(2)(b) or (c) above
(5) A direction given by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above may only direct the Agency to do, in relation to any consent,—

(a) any such thing as the Agency has proposed should be done in relation to that consent, or
(b) any such thing with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.'.

No. 104, in page 337, line 46, at end insert—
'In section 34(1) of that Act (which, with certain exceptions, makes it an offence to disclose certain trade secrets) after paragraph (b) (no offence where disclosure made in accordance with directions) there shall be inserted—
(bb) under or by virtue of section (Disclosure of information) of the Environment Act 1995, or'.
No. 27, in page 339, line 7, leave out
'42, 46 and 56(1) to (4)'
and insert
'42B, 46 to 46C and 56(1) to (3)'.

No. 28, in page 339, line 19, at end insert—
'() In Schedule 13 to that Act (minor and consequential amendments) in paragraph 75(27) (which amends certain provisions of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968) for the words from the beginning to "premises)" there shall be substituted the words "In section 53 (notices to be in writing)".'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 23

TRANSITIONAL AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 347, line 42, at end insert—

'The Water Industry Act 1991

.—(1) Where, before the coming into force of the repeal by this Act of section 151 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (financial contributions to rural services), the Secretary of State has received an application from a relevant undertaker for a contribution under that section, he may, notwithstanding the coming into force of that repeal

(a) give any such undertaking for any contribution sought by that application as he could have given under that section prior to the coming into force of that repeal;
(b) make any payments provided for in an undertaking given by virtue of this sub-paragraph.

(2) Notwithstanding the coming into force of the repeal by this Act of that section—

(a) the Secretary of State may make any payments provided for in an undertaking given by him under that section prior to the coming into force of that repeal;
(b) subsection (4) of that section (withholding and reduction of contributions) shall—

(i) continue to have effect in relation to contributions which the Secretary of State, before that repeal of that section, gave an undertaking under that section to make; and
(ii) have effect in relation to contributions which the Secretary of State has, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, undertaken to make.'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Schedule 24

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 357, line 29, column 3, leave out '7(8)' and insert '7(2) and (8)'.

No. 213, in page 359, column 3, leave out line 35.

No. 107, in page 361, line 16, column 3, at end insert—
.(aa) paragraph 1(13);'.

No. 108, in page 362, line 7, column 3, at end insert—'Section 151.'.

No. 109, in page 365, line 58, after '42(11)(0' insert 168A'.—[Mr. Atkins.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified.]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We come to the end of the discussions on the Environment Bill. It is a substantial piece of legislation, which makes progress in environmental protection on a broad front. The Bill has been further strengthened during its Commons stage in ways that I believe have been widely welcomed.
I acknowledge the scope for disagreement on the details of the Bill, but I believe that the House and the country will recognise that the Bill is an important milestone, which further marks the Government's commitment to responsible environmental protection. I believe that it is a Bill that has properly sought to place sustainable development as the centrepiece of what we seek to do,

and I much welcome the comments on both sides of the House that have enabled us to bring much of it forward with a common degree of support.
I believe that, in future, people will look back to the Bill as representing a major change and a considerable milestone on the march towards a society in which the environment takes a very much more central place in our consideration.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Ruddock: First, I wish to place on record my sincere thanks to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have contributed so substantially to the preparation of our scrutiny of the Bill. I also want to thank the local authority associations and the many conservation groups and green organisations that have helped us again to provide opposition to many of the things that are wrong with the Bill and helped us to tackle the Government and obtain greater clarity where that has been necessary.
The Bill began with a great deal of promise, especially the establishment of the environment agencies and the national park authorities, both of which the Labour party had advocated in the past and which we supported in the Bill.
After many months of debate, the Bill is now 365 pages long and contains 123 clauses and 24 schedules. It has not had the scrutiny that it deserved, a result not of any lack of diligence by the Opposition, but of the late and excessive tabling of amendments by the Government and the lack of clarity at times in ministerial replies. As the Secretary of State said, there have been additions and improvements to the Bill—not least in the areas of air quality, contaminated land, old mineral planning permissions and hedgerows. But, sadly, the Bill remains fatally flawed. The cost-benefit duties imposed on the agencies fundamentally undermine their central purpose and their aim. Everywhere in the passage of the Bill we have seen the pressure of commercial interests lead to changes in the Bill and to conflicts that we believe will not be resolvable in practice.
We have outlined the fact that polluters have potential recourse to the law, and nothing that the Ministers have said has allayed the fears of the Opposition and of many of the conservation bodies with great expertise in that area. The cost-benefit duty remains and it is a very deep concern as the Bill reaches its concluding stages in the House.
On the issues of contaminated land, old minerals, abandoned mines and, perhaps worst of all, today's removal of quiet enjoyment from the purposes of national parks, commercial interests have been put ahead of the interests of the environment. For all those reasons, we believe that the balance that the Government claim to have sought may result in conflict. If that is so, only the environment will be the loser.
Because of our concerns, we considered very carefully whether to vote against Third Reading. We shall not do so tonight because we remain committed to many of the ideas that are contained within the Bill. We shall abstain tonight, but our consolation is that, by the time the agencies come into operation, we can expect to be the Government, charged with the conservation and enhancement of our shared environment.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, c.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, c.),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Special Grant Report (No. 14) (Grants to Surrey Police Authority and Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District) (House of Commons Paper No. 474), which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

BUYING AGENCY TRADING FUND

That the draft Buying Agency Trading Fund (Extension) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

COMPANIES (FEES)

That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S. I., 1995, No. 1423), dated 27th May 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

Planning Application (Cirencester)

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition to the House, which is signed by approximately 2,500 people who are mainly residents in and around the town of Cirencester in Gloucestershire, against a planning application for an out-of-town retail warehouse development. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of residents of Gloucestershire
Sheweth
That planning permission for the proposed non-food retail development at Kingsmeadow, Cirencester, by Bannertown Developments Ltd., within the county of Gloucestershire is sought and that the residents of Gloucestershire are opposed to this proposed scheme.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will call upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that planning consent is refused for the said scheme.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray, c
I beg leave to present the petition.
To lie upon the Table.

Socially Necessary Railway Services

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to be able to secure a debate this evening on the question of socially necessary services in the context of the rail privatisation fiasco.
Transport problems in Wales are heavily influenced by the peculiarities of population distribution, with the vast majority of the 2.8 million inhabitants living in four counties in the south of Wales. The most congested area for traffic is thus the south-east, apart from individual large towns elsewhere, such as Aberystwyth, Bangor and Carmarthen. The difference between the south-east and the rest of Wales can be seen through the relative population densities. For example, in Cardiff there are 23 people per hectare, there are seven per hectare in Swansea and only 0.2 in Meirionnydd in my constituency and in Powys. In fact, 62 per cent. of the population live in only 17 per cent. of the land mass. As such, public transport problems, requirements and policy objectives vary considerably between widely diverse urban and rural areas. Urban areas face road congestion and peak period overcrowding on public transport, while rural Wales has an underlying need for basic mobility. While that degree of diversity requires separate policies superimposed on the public transport and road network—particularly in rural and coastal areas—there is an annual influx of tourists, who arrive primarily by car or coach but who come by public transport in some areas.
The modal split in passenger movements has changed significantly over the past 40 years. There has been a rapid increase in car ownership. In the 1960s, car ownership rates began to rise, due partly to increased consumer spending power and partly to the decline in public transport services in rural areas. Car ownership has doubled since 1968, to a total of just over 1 million. In Wales, that growth has been accompanied by a continuing downward trend in bus and rail passenger loadings, reflecting changes in the British Isles as a whole.
While car travel has increased tenfold, bus travel has halved. The number of rail journeys has also fallen, but passenger kilometres have increased by 5 per cent.—primarily due to British Rail concentrating on inter-urban and cross-country business, with the decline in rural branch lines, as passengers make fewer but longer journeys.
Rail services are needed for basic mobility, especially in rural areas, and as a means of reducing congestion and pollution as part of an integrated transport policy in urban areas. In transport expenditure generally, a number of options may be open—but in the case of train or bus passenger services, there are three. They are to retain the service in its present form, close the service, or rationalise the network by amending or merging routes—or both.
There is good evidence that the first option is realistic. Service improvements such as the introduction of new class 158s on the service west of Llanelli in Dyfed to replace diesel multiple units resulted in a 50 per cent. rise in customers. A further increase has been halted by the inadequate capacity of the one-car class 153s and two-car sets provided.
All other European socially necessary services are subsidised, many to a level far in excess of that in Britain. In Britain, the subsidy is 13 per cent. but it is 28 per cent. in Sweden, 36 per cent. in France, 48 per cent. in Germany, 58 per cent. in Portugal—which we are often told by Ministers is struggling economically—and a staggering 80 per cent. in Italy. Those figures emphasise the trend against socially necessary services and the retention of vital subsidies in Britain. One must inevitably conclude either that British Rail train operating companies are extremely efficient or that the Government are oblivious to the financial needs of socially necessarily railways. It may be that both are true to some degree.
The only railway likely to be profitable is one that is intensely used, with high-load factors. That will never be true of rural railways or of large commuter rail systems. In rural areas, single-track operation often prevents intensive use, and low-population densities do not provide the high-load factor. In urban areas such as Cardiff or south-east England, demand patterns have a high morning and evening peak, with infrastructure and rolling stock capacity far in excess of off-peak demand. Therefore, capital investment may receive an adequate pay-off during only four hours, Monday to Friday. The size of towns in Wales means that inter-city or inter-town operations may not be as financially viable as some of England's primary routes.
Despite that, many initiatives on, for example, the valley lines from Cardiff, the Bridgend-Maesteg line, the north Wales main line and lines in south-west Wales have increased patronage following track and rolling stock investment.
In the evaluation of rail investment, the central London rail study uses techniques to justify construction of, for example, the Jubilee line extension and crossrail, which include the transfer of passengers from cars to rail. That has three consequences. The first is reduced journey time; the second is reduced car usage and road congestion; and the third is increased rail revenue. However, the social benefits of reduced journey time, reduced overcrowding and reduced car flows and not the cash flow increase have justified crossrail.
The Department of Transport has accepted the issue of transfer to rail as a basis for social benefit where the transfer is on a large scale. In rural areas, the numbers are much smaller, with no major impact on road travel, but the Government have failed to consider the demand not at present, but at potential levels if capacity is increased. The former Secretary of State said that even if there were a 10 per cent. increase in rail passengers, it would represent only a 0.4 per cent. reduction in road travel within the British Isles if they had all transferred from cars. However, the comparison related to all road trips including those that were not possible by rail.
In a comment on the Welsh Office report, the Cardiff region public transport study, published in June 1994, the Minister of State admitted that the investment options were of a "one-off' nature and that continuing high levels of investment in public transport had not been considered. The impact on fare pegging and privatisation form the core of the debate. The new railway set-up involves an infrastructure company, Railtrack plc, which has two divisions covering Wales and which the Government intend to privatise at a price of between £1.5 billion and

£4 billion. The variation is a result, on the one hand, of the 8 per cent. return that any potential buyer of Railtrack will see as a minimum and, on the other, the amount of rail access charge that the new train operating companies will be able to afford.
Rail services in the British Isles from 28 May have been provided by companies wholly owned by British Rail but which form the basis of the franchises to be offered to private companies. In Wales, they are: Cardiff Railways Company Ltd.; Central Trains Ltd. to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli; Great Western Trains Ltd., that is, InterCity services to south Wales; InterCity West Coast Ltd., again InterCity services to mid and north Wales; and North-West Regional Railways Ltd., for local services north of Wales; and South Wales and West Railways Ltd.
The majority of those services receive up to 40 per cent. of their income from subsidy. Imposed on this unwieldy structure is the Government's newly introduced scheme to peg fare increases over the next four years to below the current rate of inflation. That presents the Government with a set of financial policy objectives which are not fully compatible. The first objective is to restrict fare increases to below the rate of inflation. The second is an 8 per cent. rate of return on the assets owned by Railtrack. The third is the Government's long-term policy to reduce railway subsidy, which has been their stated policy for 15 years. The fourth is to maintain the network and services at the present level after privatisation. That objective has often been repeated in the House.
There has been no Treasury statement providing a guarantee of funding to achieve the increase in subsidy that the fare pegging policy will require and depend upon. In any event, the Treasury would guarantee expenditure only up to, I believe, four years. The Secretary of State recently told me in an answer that Government funding would be available to meet the commitment. That was a blanket reply and contained no further detail. I am a bit wary of that kind of reply.
Even if the Government believe that lower fares will increase patronage, which in itself is a welcome policy that should be supported, new investment in train capacity will be required, and both capital and revenue subsidies will be necessary. If fare increases are pegged, normal cost increases facing the train operating companies may not be met. Without that ability to meet costs, the potential franchisees and their financial backers will not find the proposal to run trains on the new basis sufficiently attractive and, in consequence, will not wish to invest or to bid for the franchise. They will also be concerned about the lack of Treasury guarantees on the operating subsidies over the seven-year franchise period, when, as I have said, 40 per cent. of some companies' income will come from that source.
Companies can therefore be covered in one of two ways. First, the Government can increase their subsidy to private train companies, but that again begs the questions: why did British Rail not receive such funds, does that not conflict with the Government's long-held desire to reduce subsidy, and has the Treasury said yes, or what is the position? Secondly, access charges imposed by Railtrack on train operating companies could be reduced, but that would reduce the company's income and therefore the price that the Government would be likely to achieve for Railtrack.
The increases in subsidy following the fares pegging policy will presumably be in addition to that required to meet present levels of service on socially necessary services. An indication from the Secretary of State for Transport that actual figures currently being paid to each train operating unit or train operating company to meet social and pricing costs will be published, I believe, by the franchising director will be extremely helpful.
One broad conclusion that one can draw is that it is clear that, although the Government have stated policies on continuing to fund socially necessary rail services, those funds are not guaranteed in the medium and longer term. I see the Minister shaking his head. I have asked the question time and again without receiving real detail. If they could not subsidise British Rail, I doubt whether they will do it under the new regime. I hope that he will reply in detail on that point because I have hitherto failed to elicit any details.
In consequence, train operating companies and Railtrack will both have great difficulty in planning and forecasting budgets more than one or two years ahead, which frankly is a hopeless position for any sort of business. The structure of their networks leaves Wales's services on the periphery of all this. When profits are down as a result of reductions in revenue payments by the Treasury, those services are likely to be reduced first. I again ask the Minister for a guarantee on that very point because many people in Wales and beyond believe, as I do, that, "What Beeching started, Mawhinney will finish."
I do not overstate the case when I say that, beyond doubt, two lines in my constituency are socially necessary and the loss of either, or even the depletion of services, would be a bitter below to my constituents. The Conwy Valley line is extremely important to my constituents because it is the means of transport for many people travelling to and from work. It is a real lifeline, but with the closure of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, the line has lost £900,000 in revenue per annum and will therefore have to be substantially subsidised.
I cannot understand why the Government find subsidising environmentally sound forms of transport such a problem. Common sense dictates that rail transport is much better than large numbers of cars. The Government's stance is regressive and damaging. Will the Minister give an assurance that that line will be termed socially necessary and its service expanded? I trust that he will be able to do so.
The Cambrian line is again an important line. By coincidence, it is similar to the Conwy Valley line in that it is a scenic route—they are probably the two most scenic routes in the British Isles. The Cambrian line is also used daily and takes thousands of vicitorc during the five-month holiday period. I remind the Minister that tourism is, after all, the largest employer in Wales, employing some 95,000 people, and that it is vital to the economy of my constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The Cambrian line is vital to the economic well-being of mid and west Wales and must be preserved and expanded at all costs. I seek a similar assurance that the line will be retained and that it will be guaranteed adequate subsidy. It is vital to many thousands of people in Wales.
I continue to oppose most vehemently and for good reason the premise that railways should be privatised. If the Government will not abandon those plans, even at the eleventh hour, they must appreciate the importance of

those lines to a large part of Wales. I urge the Minister to put aside dogmatic prejudices, to think again and, for once, to listen to the people of Wales.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and to the Minister for allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate.
I want to make one central point. It is a coincidence that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and I both represent far-flung, peripheral parts of the United Kingdom, but there are socially necessary services in other main parts of the United Kingdom and it is important to recognise that.
I want to concentrate on a matter that I know is causing concern to a great many people who are anxious about the future of the railway network following privatisation. I am talking about the position of an intermediary station such as, for example, Castle Cary. That station serves a wide rural hinterland and it is not immediately adjacent to any major centre of population. It is extremely important that we remember that, when we are talking about socially necessary services we are talking not just about a service that runs from A to B, but about a service that is provided at intermediary stations. That is particularly important when such stations provide an excellent railhead for a large, scattered rural area. If we did not have that railhead, there would have to be more road traffic in local towns.
In the case of Castle Cary, it is evident that if one cut out the intermediary stations, one may find it impossible to justify running the Taunton to Reading line and vice versa, which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know well. After a certain time, any franchisee could find that without those services being provided to the intermediary stations as part of the passenger service requirements, it would be economically desirable or more profitable simply to run the Bristol route with, perhaps in the next generation of locomotion, electrification and faster trains.
We would then find that the intermediary areas would have to suffer a poorer service—probably with older rolling stock and older locomotives—and the total journey time for those of us in the far-flung wild west would deteriorate.
A simple point to add to the trenchant criticisms, comments and suggestions of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, which I endorse entirely, is that we should also be looking at the socially necessary services on main lines which serve important areas of our country.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on initiating a debate on this important subject and I welcome the opportunity it provides to reaffirm the Government's commitment to safeguard socially necessary passenger rail services and their quality.
Passenger service requirements will provide for the first time a contractually guaranteed level of train services. A key feature of PSRs is that they will guarantee the future of every line and every station on the existing network. Those are important points in reply to the concerns raised


by the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). PSRs will guarantee the future of every line and every station on the network.
In setting the passenger service requirement for each franchise, the franchising director will specify service standards, including the frequency of trains, the stations that they serve, journey times, first and last trains and weekend services. This is not a case of officials in London simply deciding what they think is good for passengers throughout the country. PSRs are subject to an unprecedented level of consultation with the users of services, through both local authorities and rail users' consultative committees. For the first time, passenger representatives have an opportunity to comment on the services that they would like operators to provide.
The outcome of the consultations on the first three PSRs—for Great Western, LTS Rail and South West trains—demonstrates that the franchising director has listened to representations. In all cases, he has added safeguards to the final PSRs as compared with the drafts that he issued for consultation. For example, he has included new commitments on first and last trains, a tightening of maximum journey times and more connections. I believe that those results demonstrate the value of that approach.
Hon. Members will know that consultations are currently under way on four more PSRs—for InterCity east coast, midland main line, Network South Central and ScotRail. Over a period, there will of course be PSRs for each of the 25 train operating companies. I am confident that the outcome of the consultations will be as satisfactory as those on the first three.
Passenger service requirements are based on the timetable being operated by British Rail at the time of franchising, but hon. Members will understand that the PSR is not itself a timetable, but sets the guaranteed level of service. I wish to emphasise that for services that are not commercially attractive—those are the general subject of the debate—the PSR is likely to provide for broadly the existing level of service. We recognise the crucial role that the railway plays in servicing communities throughout the country, and there will be clear and explicit safeguards for socially necessary services that cannot stand alone commercially. The House will know that the total subsidy budget for the current year will be about £1.7 billion. However, where the service, or part of it, is commercially attractive the PSR is likely to be at a lower level than the existing standard of service, in order to provide operators with the opportunity to develop new and varied services within that assured framework.
The security of passenger services is not dependent simply on commercial viability. The franchising process provides for the first time important safeguards for socially necessary services. Perhaps the best example that I can cite is the draft PSR for ScotRail, the first specification to be set in relation to largely rural and regional services.
Apart from the highly commercial Edinburgh to Glasgow route, the ScotRail PSR includes virtually every service in the May 1995 timetable. That is a contractual guarantee of service levels for the next seven years. Such a level of security for social rail services has never been given before, and that gives a firm indication of the

comfort that PSRs will offer to those dependent on regional rail services, and underlines the Government's commitment to the national rail network.
When he opened the debate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to levels of subsidy to railways in other countries. However, such crude comparisons are not necessarily instructive, because the level of debt of various foreign railways is on the whole much greater than that of British Rail. If he examines the funding of French railways, for example, the hon. Gentleman will find that the apparent high level of subsidy is actually needed to fund debt charges on their substantially greater debt.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Secretary of State when he said that even if there were a substantial increase in the use of the railway either for passengers or for freight, its impact would be small in terms of mitigating road traffic growth. That is a fact, but it does not mean that we consider that such transfers from road to rail are not worth while in themselves.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fares policy. Simply because fares are to be limited to ensure that passengers enjoy some of the benefits of the greater efficiencies that will result from transferring the railways to the private sector, there is no reason to assume that that will necessarily increase the cost of subsidy. In the franchising arena, as opposed to the subsidising of a monolithic nationalised industry, the difference is that potential operators will bid competitively for subsidy to secure the right to operate the services. That competitive bidding process will help to keep the demand for subsidy down.
Far from providing an uncertain future for rail operators, my experience of talking to the train operating companies leads me to believe that they can see substantial benefits in having a financial regime that is settled for seven years ahead. They know the framework within which to plan their fares because it has been laid down by the franchising director for the next seven years. They tell me that that is a far greater degree of certainty in their budgeting than they have ever had before.
I share the hon. Gentleman's hope that one of the consequences of this beneficial fares regime will be to encourage passengers who are currently using the railway to continue to do so. I also hope that it may encourage other people to start to use the railway.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern that there is no guarantee from my colleagues in Great George street about future levels of funding. That is, of course, true. However, the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Treasury never guarantees future levels of funding for any part of the Government's expenditure. In theory, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could decide when he announces the public expenditure plans in November, along with his Budget, to cut in half the funding for the national health service. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a political reality.

Mr. Tyler: Not near an election.

Mr. Watts: Not at any time. Similarly, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will recognise the political realities of a substantial undermining of funding for the railways.

Mr. Llwyd: That is the core point of the debate. I am on a wing and prayer on this issue. The Minister says in all sincerity that there will be no cuts and that the subsidy is safe. I know that the Treasury does not normally guarantee a subsidy. I am afraid to say, however, that experience of this Government shows that they say one thing now and a different thing next year. There was, for example, to be no increase or broadening of valued added tax. As soon as the election went by, such a broadening came in. I am rather concerned about empty promises; that is the point.

Mr. Watts: This is not an empty promise. One of the other realities that the hon. Gentleman must recognise is that the contracts entered into between the franchising director and the train operator impose responsibilities and obligations on both parties. The franchising director, having entered into a contract to supply grant in support

of a franchise, is committed to it. That will be one of the realities that has to be faced in any decisions that might be made about funding.
The hon. Gentleman over-emphasises the impact of the capping regime for fares on the revenues of the railways. I do not accept that it is by any means a given fact that the capping regime will reduce the revenues of the rail operators. Indeed, the financial structure that a franchise will face gives it every incentive to increase its revenue by encouraging more people to travel and to operate additional services to give the facility for more people to travel. The major costs of any operator will be covered in the contract for the passenger service requirement and additional services can be operated at marginal cost. There is every reason for franchisees to seek to expand their services and no reason to contract—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.